New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

"nohost" gathering policy #742

Closed
aboba opened this Issue Aug 22, 2017 · 1 comment

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@aboba
Contributor

aboba commented Aug 22, 2017

ORTC has an RTCIceGatherPolicy of "nohost" while WebRTC 1.0 does not define an RTCIceTransportPolicy of "nohost":
https://rawgit.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/master/webrtc.html#rtcicetransportpolicy-enum

Related WebRTC 1.0 PR: w3c/webrtc-pc#1176 (RTCIceTransportPolicy enum descriptions)

@aboba aboba added the question label Aug 22, 2017

@fippo

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

fippo commented Aug 22, 2017

There are use-cases where I am not interested in the local candidates such as when talking to an SFU. In that case, the SFU will discover the candidates as peer-reflexive.
Would ICE be faster in this case if the local agent did not have to create pairs and do checks? I think that is marginal at best.

So the nohost option would only be useful if the user agent would place more privacy restrictions on gathering candidates such as a prompt asking for permission. I haven't seen that yet and the "only default route" gathering policy (mode 3 from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-03) seems to work well enough.

Away with it ;-)

aboba added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 18, 2017

@aboba aboba self-assigned this Sep 18, 2017

@aboba aboba added the PR exists label Sep 18, 2017

@aboba aboba closed this Sep 22, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment