Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle ICE

[Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>]

Hey Christer,

On 12.10.12, 20:20, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>>>>> All in all, making assumptions on the receiving end is
>>>>>> always a risk. If the host sending the candidates knows
>>>>>> that they are its best/only candidates, then it could
>>>>>> indicated so by sending the end-of-candidates message we
>>>>>> describe in the draft.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In case Bob has a public IP address, why does Alice need to
>>>>> send an offer with the additional candidates in the first
>>>>> place? Why not simply start using them, and Bob will process
>>>>> them as peer reflexive candidates?
>>>>> 
>>>>> (I can understand that signaling is needed in case
>>>>> per-candidate ufag/pwd values are used, but let's assume a
>>>>> case where the same values are used for all candidates.)
>>>> 
>>>> My point was that Bobs IP address being public:
>>>> 
>>>> * does not mean it is the best option: VPN, tunnelling, and
>>>> multiple interfaces can all generate public host IP addresses
>>>> that are a lot less preferable to server reflexive ones. * does
>>>> not even guarantee that it's reachable. Connectivity may be 
>>>> administratively prohibited, routes can be down.
>>> 
>>> Alice CAN continue to gather candidates, in case there are
>>> better ones. My question was why she needs to signal them to Bob
>>> in a new offer, instead of simply start sending STUN checks
>>> associated with the candidates? Bob will then process them as
>>> peer reflexive candidates.
>> 
>> She can do that of course. And she should. That's what trickling
>> is about after all. But those checks may fail for the reasons above
>> (second bullet) or simply because Bob has a firewall with
>> endpoint-dependent filtering so it won't let Alice's packets come
>> in unless Bob also starts sending packets to her.
>> 
>> Does this make sense?
> 
> Note that in my use-case Bob has a public IP address, and is an ICE
> lite entity, so Bob won't send any STUN requests to Alice - only
> reply to those received from Alice.

Oh, I had missed the "Lite" part. Sorry about that.

So, yes, right now I can't think of a good reason why Alice would
continue trickling after a successful check in this case.

Emil





-- 
https://jitsi.org