IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ice] Proposal for ICE "network cost"

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Tue, 22 March 2016 00:08 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.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 9D8FD12D531 for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 7bxFg41NWOpS for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22b.google.com (mail-vk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22b]) (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 12D6B12D515 for <ice@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id k1so234682691vkb.0 for <ice@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=22f0QXAM2PrZT98gory06+81k57eL6/Ezl9QOCA8vx8=; b=ZkW9nsdhjvQSzPU/6LH3KS1aLkK6Jn64z/XxYEekNNFsXtzVbDx2oHntcGlbURwScC 6IA5q1eUX2rddqIqCdyBpYwBJ3dMCQ2oJ+1HGiIo4vHKMEXZ11SFvGy3b7prIK3d3dJQ X94knev3R9Vsb13Vah0cPJGBCYNCfYs2QDmyiPPFY2d9kkynSIK8+EYgUFcNlsNa7B3e YT1D5TM9pQ+hUf8EzTFDbuqypq7uwdqQn1y1ju2Qkcjki8eIIVodcG7Hbx/Vq5c8cWNN 4dgT7RQnoy8XOGwFhJRfSI9GTrqMa7C8d8JwZM87bWBrxbYNA+paExoqZRgbdknRgaZF 1Q4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=22f0QXAM2PrZT98gory06+81k57eL6/Ezl9QOCA8vx8=; b=k8v06MMLrS9plbcmKTmRiRG2rbqxo9pD4H+8Y2WBUH7YHswgiK9DC9yKHCiKyPGHVW AnOkNGlob2dSgS0mdK1tuXxen7kmV5TwiUXVAJPaWoVbYPoYQX9zuKKq2tmHhxP+7JLy rkawOPyQOQRD8x2U5TJBB1Ou0EErU+PoyhQkd8Hv96aPUyg2jPyN3G90iNqd8NzXOeAZ I/pQI6HyTQoK2+WLm3ZGWwQ8nJMguwg7F8C76NhO9KwdxUIx4bdB3N9qmRozVzuMeURX s3Tn2SeSDJbuROD5L9yW06stqoTA+i+FN6vFP6OsiFvzItdUvdOD8pUMC1YcaRjk0RCv cwOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLBNo9ZhlmmVRTyb8voN2EADVaIYb77TKWnvJP7NYoB/+M+pufyGXFZXn4k9aKws1T/+z+1WLDrb12MTlFK
X-Received: by 10.31.11.201 with SMTP id 192mr33001911vkl.135.1458605313163; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.38.133 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:07:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUHNJm8=fzrmvJWTz9TE47GEzkiJQOKakPzdYZ_GM67FBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ice@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114551528f7283052e980345"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/v8-kWHQlzPGt-ZHPh4dFPutA7cM>
Subject: [Ice] Proposal for ICE "network cost"
X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 22 Mar 2016 00:08:35 -0000

As an author (not a chair), I just submitted a draft for an idea I'd like
to propose for ICE: network cost.

Here's the draft:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thatcher-ice-network-cost/


The idea is basically to allow the controlled side to tell the controlling
side which candidates "cost" more than others (such as cellular costing
more than Wi-Fi).  This is different than candidate priority for reasons
explained in the draft.

Thanks,
Peter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email