[tram] considerations for ISP provided Turn server for webrtc
lingli deng <denglingli@gmail.com> Tue, 18 February 2014 01:56 UTC
Return-Path: <denglingli@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32EEF1A043D for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:56:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zkczhr2pAsc1 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:56:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-x235.google.com (mail-vc0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35AB61A051A for <tram@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:56:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id ie18so12183922vcb.26 for <tram@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:56:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=IjasYAiWwGilZxYHJK5TyIzSf8c1FU378PpBsF78uj0=; b=X81N3mpL1vgKEKJCNZtjLkofbFvUlR9mP68f5TZvVv/Cp9iFbbaWNQUlObY0NAJ6BD m9xm9zHyp01mnJU032uSxLaxMeXuuAUsHxioK/MA4j/RZ6+OhYHsTlF/n9dEjbk1UYZy HMEVAL8MNCtTnrHnYhNv2ovBQOjASXQwXX+U8n3lMhAX/5d2unztkPI+OVtpT51BR2q/ rU99DQSh9ZQtFABajuP6AiAHRM1b9ouBCfnCchxNSC9LFDYuVn018f/YZcR/FNEEwq7l v1w0htqofOAnvutfWtnvnkf6CnTRjHIVFjF92t/KJTo23nSShjbqRbwrgMTdkKhBwLJr nIXQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.61.168 with SMTP id q8mr3000415vdr.40.1392688582311; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.100.212 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:56:22 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHWmbsPOiy9c6Ba_5ynvt1Vom=QoUraD_5c-qYHcmzduwO=--Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: lingli deng <denglingli@gmail.com>
To: tram@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="001a1136b3743b83f404f2a494f8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/aVOAZQeM_9mp9VZoIpn6ibJ1cNc
Subject: [tram] considerations for ISP provided Turn server for webrtc
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 01:56:29 -0000
Hi all, We have been following the discussion on relevant lists about ISP deployed Turn relay for webrtc traffic with high interest, and think it would be helpful to share some of our thoughts on this. The attached is an initial draft discussing three potential usecases, including traffic locality, resource sharing and QoS support, for an ISP to provide public relay facilities for third party webrtc traffic. Your review and comments would be highly appreciated. Best Regards, -- 邓灵莉/Lingli Deng 中国移动通信研究院/China Mobile Research Institute e-mail: denglingli@chinamobile.com tel: 15801696688-3367 mobile: 13810597148