On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:45 PM, John Kristoff <j...@cymru.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:42:46 +0530 > > Glen Kent <glen.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Is there a reason why this is often done so? Is this because UDP > > > is stateless and any script kiddie could launch a DOS attack with a > > > UDP stream? > > > > State, some form of sender verification and that it and most other > > commonly used protocols besides TCP do not generally react to implicit > > congestion signals (drops usually). > > > > > Hmmm. The WebRTC stack has a pretty explicit form of getting and then > maintaining consent; it also rides on top of UDP (SRTP/UDP for media and > SCTP/DTLS/UDP for data channels). Because both media and data channels go > from peer to peer, it has no preset group of server addresses to white list > (the only way I can see to do that would be to force the use of TURN and > white list the TURN server, but that would be problematic for > performance). How will you support it if the default is to throttle UDP? > > Clue welcome, > > Ted > We will install a middlebox to strip off the UDP and expose the SCTP natively as the transport protocol ! Patent pending! RTCweb made a series of trade offs. Encapsulating SCTP in UDP is one of them... the idea at the time was the this is only WebRTC 1.0, so we'll do a few silly things to ship it early. As i am sure you know :)