Re: [MMUSIC] ICE aggressive nomination problem

Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> Sun, 03 November 2013 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3B2F21E80FF for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:09:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.878
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.579, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XEU7dAi3YB6U for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:09:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F2611E824A for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:09:39 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-31-5276d7b0a801
Received: from ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 29.3E.27941.0B7D6725; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 00:09:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 00:09:36 +0100
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E882110475 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 01:09:36 +0200 (EET)
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A67B4EBB4 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 01:09:35 +0200 (EET)
Received: from dhcp-91d2.meeting.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C6A4EB9E for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 01:09:34 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <5276D7B0.8050703@ericsson.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:09:36 -0800
From: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
References: <50D1FE75.9060709@nomadiclab.com>
In-Reply-To: <50D1FE75.9060709@nomadiclab.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7G62VBBkcNLKYuf8ziwOixZMlP pgDGKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6MA9MvsRfcEqjYPmk2UwPjR54uRg4OCQETiad3nbsYOYFMMYkL 99azgdhCAkcYJW7tte5i5AKy1zNKPJy+gBXCucQocX/JfUYI5zCjxLSlm1nhnN27L7CC9PMK aEucWf6TCcRmEVCRePP/EAuIzSZgL3FzwnV2EFtUIFni2YXrzBD1ghInZz4BqxERUJf4urcH LC4sYC7xaOMaqJt0Jdq3/gCLcwroSfxaehAszixgK3FhznUWCFteYvvbOcwQ/6hJXD23iRmi V1Xi6r9XjBMYRWYhWTcLSfssJO0LGJlXMXIUpxYn5aYbGWxiBIbywS2/LXYwXv5rc4hRmoNF SZz341vnICGB9MSS1OzU1ILUovii0pzU4kOMTBycUg2Mko4sj5xPZGeHLzU4aDCj4ZFT6FZj a5snd4pP+E0Q33TG98++DW+O7NVkMZyXvsLk45M/3rISlgvZPn1NKp2QvExf0H7no40XE1b9 7u77IKj59j5n4+37U/OuS9lIrNV69l91fqdzqlWejt5v5/fhjT0zLzzPLt8r6s/4Yfr02cnp UcbZuyfUK7EUZyQaajEXFScCAB9Sj2EzAgAA
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] ICE aggressive nomination problem
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 23:09:52 -0000

Folks,

This aggressive nomination bug is still an open issue for ICE. If time 
permits, I'm hoping to discuss this tomorrow. As a solution, I'm leaning 
towards the updated offer, but would like to hear your opinions on this.


Cheers,
Ari

On 12/19/12 9:50 AM, Ari Keranen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Going through the ICE spec reminded me of one old problem with
> aggressive nomination that I discussed with Philip Matthews back when
> ICE was published:
>
> Two endpoints L and R. L is the offerer and controlling end. There are
> two possible paths, and just one component.
>
> Since L is using aggressive nomination, it sets the USE-CANDIDATE flag
> in each Binding request. However, the Binding response for the first
> path does not make it back to L. When the second check succeeds, L
> immediately stops ICE processing and uses the second path. However, R
> thinks the first path is being used.
>
> Initially, L will use path 2 for data, while R will use path 1.
> Eventually, both paths will fail, because L is only sending keep-alives
> on path 2, while R is only sending them on path 1.
>
> L                                         R
>   <--------- Bind req ---------------------  ]
>   ---------- Bind resp ------------------->  ]  Path 1
>   ---------- Bind req, USE-CAND ---------->  ]
>        X <-- Bind resp --------------------  ]
>
>   <--------- Bind req ---------------------  ]
>   ---------- Bind resp ------------------->  ]  Path 2
>   ---------- Bind req, USE-CAND ---------->  ]
>   <--------- Bind resp --------------------  ]
>
> ---
>
>
> Any good ideas how to fix this? Should the controlling agent just keep
> retransmitting even after successful nomination (for how long)?
>
> The updated offer (if we make that MUST in all cases) will help to
> detect the problem though and this could also be added to the list of
> "reasons for not using aggressive nomination unless you really have to".
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ari
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic