[MMUSIC] Transport expertise needed at the ICE WG

Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> Tue, 20 October 2015 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E50C1B327F; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5kONgBCqV-e3; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 159CE1B327E; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79626d000006adf-92-562619bb3079
Received: from ESESSHC019.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id DF.C5.27359.BB916265; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:38:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Aris-MacBook-Pro.local ( by smtp.internal.ericsson.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:38:51 +0200
From: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Message-ID: <562619B9.3080504@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:38:49 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje4eSbUwg66H/BbfLtRaTF3+mMXi 2vLXrBbT5n1ktDj25i6bA6vHgk2lHkuW/GTy+HL5M1sAcxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxqLjR1kK pvBVzH7wl7mBcT93FyMnh4SAicTBmw3MELaYxIV769m6GLk4hASOMkrMvHecEcLZxCix9+N5 dpAqNgFbid/te5hAbGEBQ4kDC2aC2cwCdRJHn98FqxESUJc4sno5UJyDQ0RARKJ7hz5ImFdA W+LPnn9gy1gEVCUu/13FBmKLCqRJHL72gRWiRlDi5MwnLCCtzAL2Eg+2lkFMl5fY/nYOM8R0 VYmr/14xTmAUmIWkYxZCxywkHQsYmVcxihanFiflphsZ6aUWZSYXF+fn6eWllmxiBIbtwS2/ DXYwvnzueIhRgINRiYf3QbpqmBBrYllxZe4hRmkOFiVx3mamB6FCAumJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5 qcWHGJk4OKUaGLfbLPDwtpXqaszWcvmcsZZ79sKUiK8nxTv93z4KTTE4ONXc4uMEpQ63r6f2 zJvwufJl+gf25u7HHZvEtgadKTr1y3vBmbDNZo47hbnsjnIer/bZ0DB7Y1lgxO/mdwdKZnLe 92Df8uf31XM3hGdP/2c0yS2bo9Zjr09zoqfq9tRn+zwueE8zL1ZiKc5INNRiLipOBADCg3Ex PAIAAA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/S0IUtZNW7a_9SX3UBE2I05Jvylw>
Cc: tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>, "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>
Subject: [MMUSIC] Transport expertise needed at the ICE WG
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 20 Oct 2015 10:38:56 -0000

Hi all,

The new ICE working group was recently chartered and one reason for 
splitting this WG from MMUSIC WG was to get more folks with transport 
expertise involved.

One long-standing issue with the new revision of the ICE specification 
[1] has been finding a proper value for the transaction pacing parameter 
which governs, e.g., how fast connectivity check packets can be sent. In 
the original ICE RFC this value was set for RTP traffic minimum 20 ms 
and for non-RTP traffic minimum 500 ms [2].

The lower the pacing value, potentially faster the ICE process 
concludes, which is obviously very desirable. However, setting a too low 
value may result in overloading the NATs (they can create new binding 
only so fast) and also congesting the links so that connectivity check 
packets are lost and result in false negatives.

However, because such conservative value (500 ms) was selected for 
non-RTP traffic, in practice most implementations ignore this 
recommendation. Also the validity of the RTP traffic's 20 ms minimum 
interval has been questioned for modern networks. Now when we are 
revising the ICE specification, we'd like to select better values for these.

Therefore, we would also like to hear from transport area experts what 
would you consider a reasonable lower bound for the transaction pacing 
parameter today.

At the Yokohama meeting we are planning to have a slot at the ICE WG 
session dedicated on this topic and we would welcome your input there. 
And before the meeting please share your views on the ICE working group 
mailing list: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice

Ari & Peter (ICE WG co-chairs)

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-00
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#section-16