Re: [MMUSIC] ICE-bis: pacing of ICE connectivity checks

[Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>]

Hey Adam,

On 18.10.13, 19:30, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 10/18/13 09:44, Emil Ivov wrote:
>> It might be worth reminding exactly what these 50ms would be
>> protecting us against
>
> They're protecting us against RTP arriving at a rate of 20ms per packet.

That would indeed be one of the reasons to pace checks (in addition to 
fragile NAT boxes IIRC), however in either case, I fail to realise why 
we need a different pacing strategy for non-RTP. This is what I was 
asking about.

Connectivity check hammers can still resort to RTP if the pacing timer 
is their only problem and I don't see why shaky NATs would tolerate a 
20ms rate for RTP but only a 50ms for anything else.

This entire separation sounds quite arbitrary right now. I see why we 
would pick a value that we consider somewhat safe and secure but I don't 
understand why we would need two!?

Emil

>> and why is it that we don't need to be
>> protected against it in the case of RTP where 20ms is accepted as a
>> fine default value.
>
> Well, it's not. This is exactly why we ended up requiring ICE: it
> ensures explicit consent before you start blowing media at someone.
>
> See also http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg04589.html



-- 
https://jitsi.org