IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] ICE candidate address selection update draft

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Tue, 07 August 2012 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@vidyo.com>
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 6236721F85B4 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 02:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 42us5GW8Paot for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 02:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (mxout.myoutlookonline.com [64.95.72.244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F7221F85A3 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 02:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9358BE994; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:53:10 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at mail.lan
Received: from HUB013.mail.lan (unknown [10.110.2.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22E228BE90A; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:53:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BE235.mail.lan ([10.110.32.235]) by HUB013.mail.lan ([10.110.17.13]) with mapi; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:53:09 -0400
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>, 'Ari Keranen' <ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 05:53:08 -0400
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] ICE candidate address selection update draft
Thread-Index: Ac1z5QogRY98fn1HRDmwrq9QryRpKAAXA1fwAAq4i+AABZupQA==
Message-ID: <C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC823034DF5B10A86@BE235.mail.lan>
References: <5019BD3A.6020907@nomadiclab.com> <5019C1AB.1030709@viagenie.ca> <5019DF32.80603@nomadiclab.com> <501A08F4.9050609@viagenie.ca> <501C1F38.8050307@nomadiclab.com> <501C208C.1060207@viagenie.ca> <501C2639.60000@nomadiclab.com> <EF7F16D1-4BAB-49CA-9052-E5FE87B03271@vidyo.com> <501FDD75.3090506@nomadiclab.com> <C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC823034DF5B10A45@BE235.mail.lan> <092c01cd746c$5e7c8040$1b7580c0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <092c01cd746c$5e7c8040$1b7580c0$@com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] ICE candidate address selection update draft
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, 07 Aug 2012 09:53:13 -0000

On Tuesday, August 7 2012, "Dan Wing" wrote to "'Jonathan Lennox', 'Ari Keranen', mmusic@ietf.org" saying:

> Mine would be to take the list of IPv6 and IPv4 addresses and try them 
> in the order described by ICE (which currently recommends following 
> the OS's default, which is sometimes hard to get depending on the OS).  
> But if the first IPv6 candidate didn't return a connectivity checks 
> quickly (let's say, 150ms), initiate a connectivity check on the 
> highest priority IPv4 address next.  In that 150ms, based on ICE's 
> pacing, many IPv6 addresses will have been tried.  150ms gives plenty 
> of time for IPv6 to 'win', before using an IPv4 resource that is 
> likely shared with IPv4-only devices.

Can't this result in the endpoints getting out of sync with the order of the checklist?  If one side has started IPv4 while the other hasn't, you won't have the outbound packets coming from one side to create the port bindings.

-- 
Jonathan Lennox
jonathan@vidyo.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email