W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Restrict local UDP ports in browser "advanded settings"

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 23:17:08 -0400
Message-ID: <5260A834.9010709@bbs.darktech.org>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org

     Don't worry. If you worry long enough, IPv6 will kill NAT and this 
problem will go away by itself :)


On 17/10/2013 8:34 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> Iņaki,
> This is more or less the argument for a default port(s) for RTP. I think a default port would be a good idea. Much of the IETF disagrees with me. (I note a default port for SMTP has turned out to be sort of useful). The place to have this argument is probably the transport area list as they view themselves s the port police.  I doubt it will go real well but for what it's worth, I would like a default port. I think that bundle with ICE makes it far easier to have a default port for RTP and greatly increases the number of situations where a default port will work.
> Cullen
> On Oct 13, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Iņaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have public IP in my computer which runs some UDP daemons (i.e. a
>> SIP server). I don't want to expose such a SIP server to all the world
>> so I set iptables to block incoming UDP traffic (unless it is in
>> response to UDP traffic send from my computer to the exact origin of
>> the incoming one).
>> The problem is that with WebRTC I must be able to listen in any local
>> UDP port, and thus I cannot set iptables.
>> So, should the browser include in "advanced settings" some kind of
>> "rtp-port-min" and "rtp-port-max"? IHMO assuming "always NAT" is not
>> good.
>> Thanks a lot.
>> -- 
>> Iņaki Baz Castillo
>> <ibc@aliax.net>
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 03:17:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:51 UTC