6 comments on “An Intro to WebRTC’s NAT/Firewall Problem

  1. Thank Reid! Excellent article focusing one some of the key challenges of bringing WebRTC to the masses. I look forward to your follow-up posts when you dive further into the world of ICE/STUN/TURN.

  2. Thanks, excellent article. You indicate that NAT & Firewall exist only for preserving precious IPv4 addresses. Does that mean that one might not these NAT traversal mechanisms if once chooses to move to IPv6? Gradually everyone will be forced to move to IPv6 (though very, very slowly), so then ICE, STUN and TURN are not required practically once everyone moves to IPv6?

  3. Hi sthustfo! You point out an interesting topic. Certainly the need for address conservation goes away with IPv6, so address translation may very well go with it. However, many feel that the security mechanisms of the firewall will still exist in an all IPv6 world. Perhaps the topology discovery component of these tools will be made much easier, but likely the connectivity establishment and fallback may still be needed to traverse firewalls.

    • Reid, thanks for the clarification. From your response, I deduce that – Even with IPv6, the NAT might go away but firewall will still persist for security reasons. And ICE, STUN & TURN would still be required for firewall traversal in such a scenario also.

      Please correct me if my understanding above is correct or not. I just am trying to understand the relevance of these webrtc protocols in an IPv6 world.

      • Yep, I would agree with your understanding. I think ICE will definitely play an important role in an IPv6 world.

  4. thanks a lot Reid for this good article! But I want to ask a little question i built a webRTC app an i’ve set up STUN/TURN server for NAT traversal but it still not work when clients are connected to internet with 2 different routers. So what can be my problem here?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *