Re: [Ice] ICE PAC: When to start the timer waiting for possible peer reflexive candidates?

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 30 April 2019 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
X-Original-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6014D120321 for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a4CuiXGcLEYe for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62f.google.com (mail-pl1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD87E12031E for <ice@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id y3so6237966plp.0 for <ice@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yUN0Y8PDVWb+l5XBJjlriKXfeCv54iDMSX8fVEATulc=; b=hHkfo1Ly7zLp2OdBpH5ZfsJ1VDeowO4G1PyeJYlBwwtqwdHicY36rINwKp+pEhm9mr uVAEVOC5Jwvl1X2j7jW3diS7aekjCaMQvFoFZqUtMEDLVtBg9dQ3ITM/3Mz9ee23zA1X vyil2lsZHCDJkL54nqq6a5FtiXB0E/KAPD2hg10BRIgnPpf8xL5sW4mnYl+/Nb40M1nH 9SdDt/SJuY0ltw++3EF/TORslcorhFUjolAP7XcFWNXr1K9DLvb5L4Mlm5jK8pT2FkNz wps0+vWtrK1jJjllhWbPHvpSDlgQj6Q1sZ2On7Vj67G9KXNbh3KAI7wCuVkCR9uPkWFl EhYQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yUN0Y8PDVWb+l5XBJjlriKXfeCv54iDMSX8fVEATulc=; b=SETRTcclZi6w8whA3L26qRn/Ik9cHI/WwAyV8oJ6S45WOypdr2WEjfgpD/pikmfIEb 0+HROIy10Xa0+F88mJYn1g4VYiitKpOlWlZcbdrq2+drgRbHX5Sxr7QJQl3VGBaVHAj6 VWg61vWUWsIpf3MzbDy901M2MK9l3kB+0XJjXMWUQwvFYWsoFxK0nWSXYqwP11vvYVRO wYuSEZWBR4Mh+Iqe5KTaNk7XjYhvmkXuBENzvYTHSP/etTFMECslspZ3DBNjYo6IvCqi IC5u8lxDcqkNQ6xQS7znVVzP67sGoW/TBbj81aoExk3hijP9htltsFJWautIV/vNitXf pGAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW1utK5NhCH+yBIiEZ1kDbdmjLsP8NVz+PhMsDBta1uyANsTiUR G3TRXhxAzahzuSynqIqSB4Ng52zEG08=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwvC1h4PglZqv3knEsutkhmpOWWdeN8pAwTCC+GGbJA5wlNDjb/bHsML/aDipZlIVZ6Q5ZT9Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7789:: with SMTP id o9mr4744308pll.300.1556646666085; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-f172.google.com (mail-pf1-f172.google.com. [209.85.210.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z7sm68623009pgh.81.2019.04.30.10.51.04 for <ice@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-f172.google.com with SMTP id j11so7411524pff.13 for <ice@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a62:5a42:: with SMTP id o63mr75344971pfb.170.1556646664474; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3A66B735-03C9-41FF-95AD-500B0D469C80@ericsson.com> <CAD5OKxsMgNTQPNP4Ni72H+yD4iUeyNK+x6CSvdBApGnPTpr_vg@mail.gmail.com> <A4EC3C01-4D7D-45DF-876D-E58706F74866@ericsson.com> <CAD5OKxt8tDemkK=v4X1gjwJGLYrxcd95S7uV53_fsga6grZ_rA@mail.gmail.com> <30518269-CA9D-4F50-8CE3-062A01DBCD7F@mozilla.com> <CAD5OKxvmRK8Xzu4FSRv3Lgdg-VrrufzGhjAdSmfcLLkrm-jtjw@mail.gmail.com> <0AD3077C-74FA-4585-942A-375B83B3A7A0@ericsson.com> <CAD5OKxsgpf7Hv_nxFOZFwfNk7-_xNRzmoPTA2bZCqZo3wzudKQ@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB316172053751D307F83DE0EB933E0@HE1PR07MB3161.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxu332E8vzdc4dt09NxXGf9Cr2izwECDAQjc7V_YDx3r5w@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB316189447ED302BEC5021946933F0@HE1PR07MB3161.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOJ7v-3Dv4N5j0KykxQf-gHQfvJ9x-VzbTTTcdJyfgYgcdYy5A@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB3161E4496E7BDC5FF419CCE793390@HE1PR07MB3161.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOJ7v-3JkrYnWpghusRytVvTn1u7OibL9J3NyVh+ia9neSyuHA@mail.gmail.com> <46390078-DE3B-456B-87AC-61AE3C3DF035@ericsson.com> <CAOJ7v-202_STNVj6nLv_0pTTuE_=jn_HJusNERv9Yj7=k=86jg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-202_STNVj6nLv_0pTTuE_=jn_HJusNERv9Yj7=k=86jg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:50:53 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsUgBrJX574Mr9SexJQP-PNsyO2j6jT8=gLhnOEnf=D7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsUgBrJX574Mr9SexJQP-PNsyO2j6jT8=gLhnOEnf=D7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com>, "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007a17d20587c30bf0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/higQzPjjFPGuW0kMiTUVumIdTzs>
Subject: Re: [Ice] ICE PAC: When to start the timer waiting for possible peer reflexive candidates?
X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" <ice.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ice>, <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ice/>
List-Post: <mailto:ice@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice>, <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:51:10 -0000

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 1:03 PM Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> That's basically the same thing I was proposing in 2), with the
> clarification that the candidates were also actually transmitted. I do
> think Nils' point is important though, i.e., if we have a bad server it
> will take a very long time to decide on 'last set of candidates', which is
> probably not helpful. As such I think the potential positions we can take
> are:
> a) Start the timer as soon as we have an answer, regardless of any
> candidates.
> b) a) + receipt of at least one remote candidate (or remote EOC). (This is
> Nils' suggestion).
> c) a) + sending at least one local candidate (or local EOC).
>
> b) has a problem if the remote side doesn't send any candidates, which we
> want to explicitly allow.
>
> I tend to lean towards a) as the simplest option.
>

What about the answering agent? Does the timer starts as soon as it sends
the answer?
_____________
Roman Shpount