Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle ICE for SIP Questions

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 09 July 2013 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 E754A21F9AA2 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 15:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.114
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.114 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.323, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 JiCWqeUOhEOS for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 15:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F5E11E8193 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 14:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.28]) by qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id yMmk1l0030cZkys5AMz54x; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:59:05 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id yMz51l00F3ZTu2S3WMz5YY; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:59:05 +0000
Message-ID: <51DC87A8.6000301@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:59:04 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Stach, Thomas" <thomas.stach@siemens-enterprise.com>
References: <51D43186.2010907@jitsi.org> <F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE12114A0200@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <51D6D456.7090900@jitsi.org> <51D6F88E.5000209@alum.mit.edu> <F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE12114A1153@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <51DAE33B.3070507@alum.mit.edu> <F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE12114A31C6@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE12114A31C6@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1373407145; bh=XZsnmzL5pjdnw4ur08iYE2o5CdvtSWEvBbwGfqKMALw=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=izOKPXjxvnr8A0Msat2bmrV+mhLh9vGYP1lh98FR+GBY2GIdycuQXutwPAGXagfkE 3gog4QRlg6FvdpQbyAGMWwQItzy11KbZznX5d9+UIgW7JQcVCRGBUxS0WpCbvRCHaX POWC7h4jL6Sk7XgkqKPo8axA6AaDelCO0mGJcKwVZt3P0tnX9f3hvPR3RiQ/H93dsF xKGX3YF0cDdr7BBxxhS28uyA0xoArTHkeRWwmUYAwp1IKOyr3gopvDMyLzTi3KBexU 35GozpHBjHshShCJvzPAPrLS9Uo9wXI4g/r+RWS8JCCZmcbwSIXowCc2xzBbd02iJR k1Q5oZZEgErnQ==
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle ICE for SIP Questions
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: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 22:00:36 -0000

On 7/9/13 5:21 PM, Stach, Thomas wrote:
> Paul,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, 08 July, 2013 18:05
>> To: Stach, Thomas
>> Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle ICE for SIP Questions
>>
>> Just responding to things that haven't already been covered.
>>
>> On 7/8/13 5:44 AM, Stach, Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, why is it such an issue to require PRACK?
>>> [TS] I see potential for easier GW/SBC interworking with vanilla-ICE
>> UAs, that did not implement PRACK
>>
>> I don't get it.
>>
>> If you are talking about SBCs that terminate/relay media, then the leg
>> doing trickle-ICE is separate from the leg doing vanilla-ICE. So what
>> is
>> the issue?
>
>>
>> And if you have a signaling-only SBC, and one leg supports trickle-ICE
>> while the other side supports only vanilla-ICE, then just use
>> vanilla-ICE e2e. You won't gain anything by an intermediary trying to
>> map trickle-ICE to vanilla-ICE.
> [TS]
> If the trickle-ICE side uses PRACK and the vanilla ICE side does not, the interworking SBC does not only have to collect the trickled candidates and send it on as a bunch once trickling finished. It also has to interwork PRACK.
> As you know the PRACK request can contain a new SDP offer or you could also use UPDATE for another SDP O/A before the 200 OK to the INVITE request. This is rather nasty to interwork if not impossible.

If trickle-ICE worked without PRACK, then the SBC *still* needs to 
collect up all the trickled candidates and send them when it can based 
on the limitations of vanilla-ICE. So the use of trickle-ICE provides no 
speedup compared to using vanilla-ICE e2e.

Also, it sounds like trickle-ICE is requiring changes in the ordering of 
how candidates are tried. If one side uses trickle-ICE and the other 
doesn't, then ISTM that may break.

So I'm still not seeing a case here when it makes sense to gateway 
between trickle-ICE and vanilla-ICE. There may be one, but I'm not 
seeing it.

	Thanks,
	Paul