[BEHAVE] Re: removing application milestone

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

(I adjusted the subject, because this thread is about BEHAVE's application
milestone).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 8:49 AM
> To: Dan Wing; David Barrett; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [BEHAVE] RE: ICE performance 
> 
> > I ask because ICE does a 4-way handshake (of sorts), which
> > is its NAT penetration.
> 
> This is a welcome discussion and points to the fact that we have no
> published facts on ICE. Faith is a poor replacement for measurements.
> 
> ICE differs from say SIP in that it is far more than a protocol
> agreement. ICE is a technology that has to deal with countless NAT
> implementations and scenarios, with physical reality on the net vs.
> getting an agreement on some protocol header or data format.
> 
> Excellent role models in BEHAVE where an I-D is based on facing and
> measuring reality on the net are:
> 
> 1. "NAT Classification Test Results"
> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-jennin
> gs-behave-
> test-results-04.txt  
> 
> and 
> 
> 2. "Application Design Guidelines for Traversal through 
> Network Address
> Translators" 
> <
> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-ford-b
> ehave-app-
> 05.txt> which is based on test tools and real testing on the net, as
> reported in 
> 
> "Peer-to-Peer Communication Across Network Address Translators" 
> http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat/ 
> 
> This is BTW the reason why I have argued 
> <draft-ford-behave-app-05.txt>
> to be a WG item.
> 
> Dan: Is there a way to squeeze it in?

I don't believe draft-ford-behave-app-05.txt contains the
same information as http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat.  
Rather, draft-ietf-behave-p2p-state-03.txt seems to contain the same
information as http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat.  
draft-ietf-behave-p2p-state-03.txt is a working group item, and I
expect to be issuing a WGLC in the next day or two.

In Prague's BEHAVE meeting, there was consensus to not adopt
draft-ford-behave-app, and there was consensus to remove our
application milestone altogether, per my post on April 11:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg02128.html
which had no replies on the list until Suresh's reply on July 7,
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg02459.html

> To conclude; this discussion would not have taken place if we 
> would have had deployment results for ICE.

(I responded to that last point in your MMUSIC/SIP thread.)

-d

> Thanks, Henry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Wing [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:33 AM
> To: 'David Barrett'; Henry Sinnreich; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: ICE performance 
> 
> 
> (Changing subject line) 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Barrett [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 1:04 AM
> > To: 'Dan Wing'; 'Henry Sinnreich'; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] Re: removing application milestone
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dan Wing [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > 
> > > What's the latency if there are no NATs involved whatsoever?  Your
> > > numbers indicate hundreds of milliseconds for every NAT scenario,
> > > even for the kinds of NATs that allow connections from any IP
> > > address.  NATs do not, on their own accord, add hundreds of
> > > milliseconds of delay.  If they did, DNS queries would take too
> > > long and people would complain that "the Internet" is slow (web
> > > pages with lots of embedded objects on different servers).
> > 
> > I'm not sure I follow.  The times I gave were the elapsed ms 
> > it took to establish the connection from start to finish.  So 
> > it'd be roughly:
> > 
> > (The RTT time between A and the RZ server) +
> > (The processing time inside the RZ) +
> > (The RTT time between A and B) +
> > (The three-way handshake and NAT penetration time)
> 
> Without any NATs, that last event (NAT penetration time) 
> doesn't occur.
> I'm
> curious what times you have without any NATs.  This would 
> allow learning
> the
> NAT penetration time for the non-ICE NAT traversal technique you're
> using.
> 
> > Thus in general, it takes a second or less to establish the 
> > connection. 
> 
> By 'the connection', I believe you're referring to that last 
> step (3 way
> handshake and NAT penetration time)?
> 
> Is the 3-way handshake TCP, or is that your NAT penetration 
> code doing a
> 3-way handshake?  I ask because ICE does a 4-way handshake (of sorts),
> which
> is its NAT penetration.
> 
> > However, once that connection has been established, 
> > there is no additional latency introduced by the system: packets 
> > flow between A and B directly at whatever latency is introduced 
> > by the intermediate networks.
> 
> Right.
> 
> > Does this answer your question?  How long does it typically 
> > take ICE to establish a connection, including the "triggered 
> > check" optimization? 
> 
> I don't know.  I don't have direct experience with ICE on 
> the Internet.  I haven't seen any published information with
> those numbers.  You may have noticed Henry asking for such
> information on MMUSIC and on SIP, 
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg05997.html
> 
> > Is it also subsecond on average between any two points on the globe?
> 
> Most of the time, yes.
> 
> ICE always establishes a direct, peer-to-peer connection when 
> it can.  
> In some cases [such as two endpoints behind 'symmetric' NATs (RFC3489
> terminology) or non-Endpoint-Independent Mapping NATs (RFC4787 
> terminology)] there is no reliable technique to get a direct peer-to-
> peer connection.  The unreliable technique to establish a direct 
> peer-to-peer connection in that situation is to guess the port number 
> assigned by the remote NAT.
> 
> -d
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave


_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave