Re: [AVT] Last Call:<draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-15.txt> (Unicast-Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions) to Proposed Standard
"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Thu, 07 October 2010 22:05 UTC
Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765793A6C73 for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3+PGwZ8VOLMw for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE543A6E30 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAK7grUyrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACiPnGiEJxXAoJxglQEhFGIdw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,299,1283731200"; d="scan'208";a="600792003"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Oct 2010 22:06:45 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o97M6jLu019609; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 22:06:45 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:06:45 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:06:15 -0700
Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D5BEF18@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <EC3FD58E75D43A4F8807FDE0749175460E377B8F@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [AVT] Last Call:<draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-15.txt> (Unicast-Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: ActlYcksLi1lQkpmQf2ZWFicKaMCdAAC80iAACZv2vAAGRa+oA==
References: <20100914165611.21618.35586.idtracker@localhost><4CA33861.5070603@ericsson.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D45A769@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com><4CA9C1A5.9080508@ericsson.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D4FA908@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com><4CA9F4E5.2020402@ericsson.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D4FA9A8@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com><4CAAE1BC.3080703@ericsson.com><04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D4FB165@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com><4CAC85E9.2010508@ericsson.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D4FB20C@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <EC3FD58E75D43A4F8807FDE0749175460E377B8F@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: "Van Caenegem, Tom (Tom)" <tom.van_caenegem@alcatel-lucent.com>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2010 22:06:45.0472 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE3D4E00:01CB666B]
Cc: draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp@tools.ietf.org, avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVT] Last Call:<draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-15.txt> (Unicast-Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:05:45 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: Van Caenegem, Tom (Tom) [mailto:tom.van_caenegem@alcatel-lucent.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:31 PM > To: Ali C. Begen (abegen); Magnus Westerlund > Cc: draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp@tools.ietf.org; avt@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [AVT] Last Call:<draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-15.txt> (Unicast-Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP > Sessions) to Proposed Standard > > Hi, > > I have never been in favour of the "UPDATE" usage of RAMS-R, and I guess we did not think sufficiently through the corner > cases that were created with introducing/allowing it. Possibly a sequence number field for RAMS-R (and proper usage > definition) could have avoided the corner case Magnus mentions. The least we should do is indeed mention the risks when a > client uses RAMS-R which could be also covered in the section "failure cases". Maybe it is also worthwhile to restrict the > usage of sending RAMS-R update message(s) only after the RTP RX has received a RAMS-I message for the 1st RAMS-R > message sent. > > I would be also in favour of having the possibility for a BRS to tell a RTP-Rx NOT to make use of RAMS-R update messages > (where for the same RAMS/burst transaction, at least one TLV field is provided with a different value or at least one TLV field > is new, compared to the original RAMS-R). Such indication could be by means of defining e.g. a 202 response code (RAMS > request has been accepted BUT no RAMS-R update messages allowed) in the 1st RAMS-I message. If the rams-updates is not signaled in SDP, the client is not supposed to send update messages. So, just don't put it in the SDP. -acbegen > Tom > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ali C. Begen (abegen) > Sent: woensdag 6 oktober 2010 17:53 > To: Magnus Westerlund > Cc: draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp@tools.ietf.org; avt@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-15.txt> (Unicast-Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP > Sessions) to Proposed Standard > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 10:21 AM > > To: Ali C. Begen (abegen) > > Cc: draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp@tools.ietf.org; > > avt@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: Last Call: > > <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-15.txt> (Unicast-Based Rapid > > Acquisition of Multicast RTP > > Sessions) to Proposed Standard > > > > Hi, > > > > I would say that it is a failure of the design, to not make RAMS-R > > updates work well. I see one fix that would seem easy to avoid these > > problems. Create a new message type RAMS-U that is identical to RAMS-R > > except the message type and restrict it to work on a ongoing burst. > > The > > I don't think this is a good design choice. When the updates feature was desired by some folks, we only agreed to have it if it > the messages still stayed "self-defining". Now, when a server receives a RAMS-U message but it does not have an ongoing > burst since the first message (RAMS-R) was lost, it won't process it based on your definition. > > > other way is to rip out update for now to avoid having this obviously > > broken mechanism stay in there. And if someone needs it in the future > > then define it properly. > > I think we can still keep the current text (about the update process) for those who are still planning to use it by putting a > caution against such problems. Would that work for you? > > -acbegen > > > I do want this finished up and published, but not with serious issue > > part of the spec. > > > > Magnus > > > > > > > > > > Ali C. Begen (abegen) skrev 2010-10-06 10:09: > > > Dropping the ietf list off. > > > > > >>> Are you saying this: > > >>> 1- The client makes a request but it gets lost. In the mean time, > > >>> the client sends an update and the server thinks it is a > > new > > >> request and starts sending the burst > > >> > > >> No, > > >> 1. the client sends a request intended to update an ongoing burst. > > >> > > >> 2. The RAMS-R (update) arrive to late. Thus triggering a second burst. > > > > > > Oh, Ok. Now I see your scenario (update arriving late and causing a > > > new burst to start). Well, this is an ill scenario with > > mid-session updates. While the chances are pretty slim for this > > happen, it can happen. For this to happen, the client must really send an update close to the join time and then the RAMS-R > gets delayed for some reason. > > > > > > The only solution for this is that the client will send a RAMS-T for > > > the second burst as soon as it detects it. Furthermore, if > > the primary stream packets have a higher priority than the burst > > packets (and they should if the network supports this), mcast stream won't be hurt. > > > > > > FWIW, mid-sessions updates are not problem-free. So if someone wants > > > to implement it, they will have to live with the > > complications. > > > > > >> 3. In the mean time, client gets an RAMS-I and joins the multicast > > >> group > > >> > > >> 4. Burst + mcast creates a congestion. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>> unwanted traffic. The client that detects this can surely > > >>>> terminate the burst, but that will be after some delay, and traffic has arrived. > > >>> > > >>> OK, so you are saying what I wrote above. Well, the client has to > > >>> send a RAMS-T and upon receiving it, the server stops > > the > > >> burst. So that is not a big deal. If you are concerned about RAMS-T > > >> being lost (which is repeated if the bust is not stopped), then I > > >> will just remind you that this is a protocol where control messages > > >> are not fully reliable (they are just repeated for redundancy as frequently as 4585 allows). If you are really this unlucky, > you will have a problem but it will be only temporary. > > >>> > > >> > > >> I will agree that you can stop the burst, but you have biased your > > >> protocol by design against sending any RAMS-R with the purpose of > > >> updating the parameter because other things happens than what you > > >> intended to. Thus it will in most cases be better to not send an > > >> RAMS-R update message and avoid the risk of tripping a second burst. > > > > > > Personally, I don't see the much benefit in using the RAMS-R > > > updates. That's why they are optional for those who want to > > implement them. > > > > > >> > > >>> I don't think there is anything here that requires for us to burn > > >>> our energy. FWIW, your proposal would not solve this > > >> problem entirely, either. > > >> > > >> I agree that a RAMS-R sequence number would not resolve the issue > > >> you described. However, it resolves the issue I have tried to > > >> describe, I hope the above makes it clear. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 4. Section 6.2, bullet 5: " Thus, the RTP_Rx MUST choose a globally > > >>>>>>>> unique CNAME identifier." > > >> [snip] > > >> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>>> If I understand the impact of a CNAME collision is that the > > >>>>>>>> collision clients request will be mixed up, for example > > >>>>>>>> terminating each others request, or update the values in the RAMS-R. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> When they are unique, this won't happen. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Just checking, but if that is the case then I am missing a > > >>>>>> discussion of hijacking attacks in the security consideration > > >>>>>> section by guessing your targets CNAME. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> We should probably mention this but I am not sure how the server > > >>>>> can deal with this. Hijacking is not easy since the > > >> attack > > >>>> must take place at the same instant (more or less) with the > > >>>> request from the authentic client. One of your family > > >> members > > >>>> can probably do this :) > > >>>> > > >>>> The real solution is where you have an more permanent id system > > >>>> in place that you can connect through source authentication of the requests. > > >>>> > > >>>> In an SSM session that uses simple feedback model the RTP_Rx > > >>>> cname may leak as they are redistributed. > > >>>> > > >>>> Based on that you could bombard a BRS with RAMS-T for example for > > >>>> all known CNAMES and do that in a round-robin fashion across > > >>>> channels and time. Depending on source address spoofing you will > > >>>> more or less easy to find. But I do agree that it becomes a > > >>>> little bit more a brute force attack, but an attacker could gain > > >>>> knowledge about an important piece of information to mount the attack at all. > > >>> > > >>> SRTCP? > > >> > > >> SRTCP keyed with unique keys for each client will prevent anyone > > >> else to send RAMS-T to terminate a burst you have initiated. > > > > > > OK. > > > > > >>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 7. Section 7.3: > > >>>>>>>> "The MSN value SHALL > > >>>>>>>> be set to zero only when a new RAMS request is received." > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> How is that actually known? And why reset it at all? Why not > > >>>>>>>> increase if for each new RAMS-I message with new content, > > >>>>>>>> independently if it is an update or a new request. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If this is relating to a new burst request, then it is reset. > > >>>>>>> Ow, what is the point of having a seqnum? If something has > > >>>>>> changed compared to the previous RAMS-I, then MSN is incremented. If it is just a re-xmit, MSN stays the same. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I fully agree with the need for separating retransmissions from updates. > > >>>>>> However, I wonder over the reset of the field for each new > > >>>>>> RAMS-R. It appears to me to be more robust to simply increment > > >>>>>> it rather than reset. Otherwise you can send RAMS-R(1) resulting in RAMS-I MSN = 0. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I think we discussed this before. The RAMS-R numbers are no way > > >>>>> correlated with the RAMS-I numbers. You are still > > >> trying > > >>>> to correlate them. > > >>>> > > >>>> Nope, the number here are still only to indicate that they are > > >>>> different to get the sequence right. My point is that the client > > >>>> can determine based on MSN if it is an repeat or a new RAMS-I based on a new request. > > >>> > > >>> When the client receives a RAMS-I with MSN=0, it knows that RAMS-I > > >>> was sent for a RAMS-R message that was received > > >> the first time by the server or an identical repeat of the initial RAMS-I message. > > >>> > > >>> But even if the client sends an updated request, the server may > > >>> ignore it, may ignore the changes and subsequently > > repeat > > >> the earlier RAMS-I with no changes in it, which will have the > > >> previous MSN. The server may not send anything at all or the > > >> message may get lost. The client cannot assume the changes it > > >> requested were honored by the server UNLESS there was > > an > > >> updated RAMS-I from the server. Even in that case, the RAMS-I > > >> changes may be due to other things the server has > > observed - > > >> not the changes the client asked. > > >>> > > >>> So, the client should not really read too much in to the MSN > > >>> values received. That is what I have been trying to explain in > > >> this discussion. > > >> > > >> Also in this case I don't think we have been considering the same case. > > >> My case was the following. > > >> > > >> 1. C->S RAMS-R > > >> 2a. S->C RAMS-I (MSN=0) > > >> 2b. S->C Burst starts > > >> 3. C->S RAMS-R(Intended to update first RAMS-R) 4. S: Burst ends 5. > > >> S: RAMS-R from step 3 arrives in server and trigger new burst 6. > > >> S->C RAMS-I (MSN=0) 7. S->C Second burst transmitted > > >> > > >> When the RAMS-I message from step 6 arrives the client may think > > >> this is the same as the one in 2a. > > >> > > >> Are you assuming that there is a 4b RAMS-I message which indicates > > >> that the first burst will be terminated that has MSN=1? What if > > >> that is lost or not sent? > > > > > > Well that RAMS-I is not necessarily sent. And if sent, it may get > > > lost. Again, this is an ill scenario with RAMS-R updates. But > > here the problem is the second burst not failing to identify the > > second RAMS-I. When the 2nd burst starts, the client will figure out, things were screwed up. > > > > > >>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Then a RAMS-R(2) that is intended to be an update but becomes > > >>>>>> an new request results in an RAMS-I with MSN = 0. The client > > >>>>>> will not know if this is an retransmission of RAMS-R(1) info. > > >>>>>> The updated should result in MSN=1. So without comparing the > > >>>>>> RAMS-I you can't determine if there > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The client checks the RAMS-I seqnum to see whether it is a > > >>>>> repeat or new info. If RAMS-I MSN is zero, that is the first > > >>>> RAMS-I anyway so it must be fully parsed. Does not matter which > > >>>> RAMS-R actually generated it since that is the info > > from > > >> the > > >>>> server until an updated RAMS-I is received. This is how the protocol works. > > >>>> > > >>>> As I try to explain there is a case where you can get two RAMS-I > > >>>> with MSN=0 in a row with different information. Thus not > > >>>> providing any relieve for the client in the need to compare the > > >>>> whole request with the previous one. > > >>> > > >>> So what? If you made a single request and received two RAMS-I messages with MSN=0, that means they are identical. > > No > > >> need to compare them. If you made two requests and received two > > >> RAMS-I messages with MSN=0, they are different messages and you need to fully read them anyway. > > >> > > >> Okay, so your point is that as soon you have sent more than one > > >> RAMS-R message to a BRS you will need to look at all RAMS-I and the > > >> MSN becomes completely useless. But, then I think the document > > >> needs to point out that MSN is only reliable to detect repeat > > >> transmissions as long as you have sent no additional RAMS-R messages during a minute or so. > > > > > > We should put some text about this. IF the client sent RAMS-R > > > update(s), it should probably check every RAMS-I regardless > > of MSN values. > > > > > > -acbegen > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Magnus Westerlund > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > > Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Working Group > avt@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisitio… The IESG
- Re: [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquis… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquis… Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquis… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquis… Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquis… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquis… Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquis… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquis… Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquis… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquis… Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquis… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVT] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquis… Van Caenegem, Tom (Tom)
- Re: [AVT] Last Call:<draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisi… Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVT] Last Call:<draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisi… Van Caenegem, Tom (Tom)