Re: [mif] MIF at the application level

[Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>]

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> Marc Petit-Huguenin escribió:
>> marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>>  
>>> but NICE is about how selecting address pairs, rather than just the
>>> local address, isn't it?
>>>
>>> I mean, i would expect that selecting the local address to be a much
>>> simpler problem than selecting the address pair
>>>     
>>
>> The well known usage for NICE is to find the best route for NAT
>> traversal,
> 
> not route, but source destiantion address pair, if i remember correctly

Yes, I didn't mean route as in routing.

>>  but NICE is useful even without NAT.  In a MIF
>> environment without any NAT, NICE will find the correct local
>> address to use to reach a specific destination, and this without any
>> configuration.
> 
> agree, but at a high cost. I mean, if i remmeber correctly NICe tries
> the differnet address paris till it finds one that is working
> that would certainy work, but i think we can do much better (i.e. less
> latentcy, less traffic) for the problem that you only need to figure out
> which local address to use

We'll see.

> 
>>   Before NICE, people tried to find the best route by
>> trying to guess what type of NAT was in front of the host, which is
>> a problem that cannot be solved.  I feel that choosing the right
>> local address is a similar kind of problem that NICE can solve at
>> the application level.
>>
>>   
> 
> while the problem maybe similar, my take is that there are much simpler
> solutions that trying every address pair

This is what people said for the discovery of NAT type, hence RFC
3489 - and it's subsequent deprecation - so, we'll see.

Do you have any pointer to this solutions?

> 
>> The idea behind NICE is that the local address to use is the one
>> that have connectivity with the destination to reach.  That seems
>> obvious but that was kind of a new concept at the time (and kudos to
>> Jonathan for this work).
>>   
> well, seems to be very similar to ICE :-)

NICE = ICE without SIP.  I said NICE and not ICE because the IETF is
full of literalists who would ask why I want to use SIP...

> 
> Regards, marcelo
> 
> 
>>  
>>> regards, marcelo
>>>
>>> Marc Petit-Huguenin escribió:
>>>    
>>>> I read the 4 documents listed in the agenda for the MIF BOF, and I
>>>> am surprised to see very few discussion about the application
>>>> behavior in presence of multiple interfaces.  The documents talk
>>>> mostly about operating system configuration but, in the spirit of
>>>> the end to end argument, I do think that the final decision on what
>>>> network to choose (when there is a choice) should be made by the
>>>> application, with fallback to some automatic configuration when the
>>>> application is not smart enough to do this.  NICE
>>>> (draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip) is a very good example on how an
>>>> application can choose between different networks and perhaps this
>>>> draft, that does not seem to be maintained currently, could be part
>>>> of the deliverables of the future MIF WG.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>
>>
>>   
> 


-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Home: [e-mail]
Work: [e-mail]