New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.
Starred by 6 users

Issue metadata

Status: WontFix
Owner:
Last visit > 30 days ago
Closed: Mar 12
Cc:
Components:
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 3
Type: Enhancement

Blocked on:
issue 1406


Show other hotlists

Hotlists containing this issue:
Hotlist-1


Sign in to add a comment

Support SSODA for allocating TURN v4/v6 addresses

Project Member Reported by juberti@webrtc.org, Mar 21 2014

Issue description

Project Member

Comment 1 by juberti@webrtc.org, Aug 21 2014

Owner: juberti@webrtc.org
Assigning to Justin until spec is updated to address WG feedback.

Comment 2 by juberti@google.com, Oct 17 2014

Labels: -Type-Bug -Area-Transport Type-Enhancement Area-Network

Comment 3 by vrk@webrtc.org, Nov 3 2014

Blockedon: webrtc:1406
Labels: Area-Compliance-1.0 EngTriaged IceBox
Project Member

Comment 4 by tnakamura@webrtc.org, Nov 4 2015

Cc: pthatcher@webrtc.org hta@webrtc.org
This bug hasn't been modified for more than a year. Is this still a valid open issue?
Project Member

Comment 5 by juberti@webrtc.org, Nov 5 2015

yes, let's keep
Project Member

Comment 7 by juberti@webrtc.org, Nov 6 2015

Cc: juberti@webrtc.org honghaiz@webrtc.org
Owner: guoweis@webrtc.org
TurnPorts on v4 interfaces should use AAF to allocate v4 + v6.
TurnPorts on v6 interfaces should use RAF to allocate just v6.
I don't think we want to encourage v6 TurnPorts to allocate v4 addresses.

This way, v4-to-v6 will use v4 on the short leg (to TURN server) and v6 to the long leg (the remote endpoint, or remote TURN). And we reduce the number of candidates we generate.
Project Member

Comment 8 by pthatcher@webrtc.org, Feb 8 2016

Owner: pthatcher@webrtc.org
Project Member

Comment 9 by kjellander@webrtc.org, Nov 3 2016

Components: SpecConformance>WebRTC-1_0
Project Member

Comment 10 by kjellander@webrtc.org, Nov 3 2016

Components: SpecConformance
Project Member

Comment 11 by pthatcher@webrtc.org, Nov 8 2016

Labels: -Pri-2 Pri-3
Project Member

Comment 12 by hta@webrtc.org, Mar 12

Status: WontFix (was: Assigned)
the relevant specification seems to be ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-FAMILY:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-14#section-16.11

I can't find the reference that makes support of this mandatory for WebRTC, however.



Sign in to add a comment