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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Thu, 31 July 2014 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46241A0248 for <>; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9l0xJH7JwuKL for <>; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 875DF1A0201 for <>; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k15so3056903qaq.24 for <>; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s9wvUdkReiBB4lT0lFASnQuz9lj5sYtHf+ed8tRvwz8=; b=kJ/BwoEhqZb8wQteps37t2UKQ0OaLxS+amP/icdqLekaXtSQrOTpSvi1Peu4R6iy0R l84RjyQti+g9WIXxIyzILzMqfUM59wv2J5OjRH3HOJwPuUH1/4rZObgKe2Vq8ZeY9c4L bZT5mTVgDTD3RsYsFxH1Ntb+BJM+2vgxUBaVL35ipznJjQp62pAWnNEOakEsuRXYG5Eh tklS/+MR1bZ4aOUJwGGnD55l/af1+J/dAORRYx3eyVGKD9U74vuCIQI1vOcM6FzglrTM 9wwvOY4/TRYfII6drc6bz17GIPilaxmRyQXrzyjiDgpJpQfu7hCMNBU1MtHlpkHOGonl /gSg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id r47mr2064670qgr.59.1406846431835; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 00:40:11 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Martin Thomson <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Jonathan Lennox <>, mmusic <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Merging ICE aggressive and regular nomination (was Re: [tram] Comment on draft-williams-peer-redirect-01: might it not converge?)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 22:40:33 -0000

2014-08-01 0:28 GMT+02:00 Martin Thomson <>om>:
> There is obviously a point at which it is expedient for a range of
> reasons to nail things down to a single pair of addresses.  That
> includes cleanup and some SDP interactions, along with some fun
> middlebox issues.  So we have an ICE process that completes, but ICE
> doesn't actually *need* to complete.  It's primary goal is to find
> some way to get the packets through.

If you allow "application data" coming from a source address which is
not the ICE nominated one then you must specify how such an
application data must behave when ICE is used to determine the network
path(s). As said before:

- For SRTP/SRTCP it is not a big deal given than you manage each RTP
packet separately (no matter where it comes from as long as it can be
decrypted with the previously negotiated keys).

- For DTLS it means complexity in the sense that a separate DTLS
session/context is required for each "transport".

- For any other network protocol new rules should be specified.

So I would like that ICE is used to determine a *single* and
*definitive* (at least until it is not restarted by STUN/ICE
procedures) network path. Life becomes easier and any kind of
application data can be easily carried once ICE completes (and
provides a *single* network path).

Iñaki Baz Castillo