Re: [MMUSIC] Merging ICE aggressive and regular nomination (was Re: [tram] Comment on draft-williams-peer-redirect-01: might it not converge?)

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Justin Uberti <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Jonathan Lennox <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>  On Jul 30, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Justin Uberti <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>   On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Jonathan Lennox <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Thus the suggestion I’m making — do regular nomination, but allow
>>> media to be sent on any valid pair prior to selection.  (Yes, re-reading
>>> 5245, I should have said “Valid” rather than “Confirmed”.  I mis-remembered
>>> the terminology.)
>>>
>>
>>  Understood. But controlled side needs some way to know what pair it
>> should use to send media, so we need some way to indicate this. Would this
>> be done via USE-CANDIDATE? If so, we could end up with multiple
>> USE-CANDIDATEs as we figure out the ideal path to use, which doesn't fit
>> exactly with regular nomination as defined in 5245, but otherwise seems
>> exactly like what I am proposing. Basically, controlled side uses the pair
>> that it most recently received USE-CANDIDATE on as its selected pair.
>>
>>
>>  Oh, that’s true, it has to pick something.
>>
>>  In the semantic I’m suggestion, I think it doesn’t *matter* what it
>> picks — it could choose any valid pair, just like the controlling agent
>> does, since it knows that’s a working round-trip path.
>>
>>  For both sides, if you receive media on any candidate (from an IP and
>> port from which you’ve received a valid connectivity check), accept it.
>>  USE-CANDIDATE is then just an optimization that lets you close down the
>> unselected candidates.
>>
>>  I don’t think you want a rule of “most recently received USE-CANDIDATE”
>> to determine the selected pair.  Checks will race each other, especially
>> when the paths’ RTTs are very different.
>>
>>  In my model, there is only ever one USE-CANDIDATE sent per component —
>> i.e., it works like pure regular nomination, except for the “early media”.
>>
>
> OK, I get it now. I think the main issues you face are:
> 1) Inability to selectively free candidates - all candidates except the
> selected pair can be freed by the controlled side after USE-CANDIDATE.
> 2) No guarantee of symmetric RTP - remote side can use a different pair
> than local side - and you can't resolve this without USE-CANDIDATE (see #1).
> 3) Potential issues when media arrives on non-nominated pair.
>
> Given #3, I think I'd prefer to find a solution that also addresses #1/#2.
>

Sounds like #3 is unlikely to be a problem given 5245 allows it.

What do others think about #1/#2? These seem to be the main differences
between Jonathan's proposal and my proposal.