Re: [MMUSIC] ICE-bis: pacing of ICE connectivity checks

It might be worth reminding exactly what these 50ms would be
protecting us against, and why is it that we don't need to be
protected against it in the case of RTP where 20ms is accepted as a
fine default value.

Emil

--sent from my mobile

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Trying to close the open issue on the pacing of ICE connectivity checks, we
> still need to come up with the "new conservative default value" for the
> minimum pacing time with non-RTP traffic.
>
> When this was discussed at the Orlando meeting, I proposed 100 ms (see [1]
> and [2]) but during the meeting there was a question that why could not we
> make this even smaller (e.g., 20 ms).
>
> If we think about the worst case scenario with maximum length username
> fragment (256 bytes), that results in maximum size ICE connectivity check
> packets of about 330 bytes. Add a few extensions, rounding it up to 350
> bytes, we're still at 35 ms "safe" pacing interval if we follow the
> rationale proposed by Cullen in [1] (i.e., similar bandwidth requirement as
> with G.711).
>
> So, to be "conservative enough", how about 50 ms RECOMMENDED pacing value if
> there's no better knowledge of the network? And if there is, scale
> accordingly, but not below 20ms.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ari
>
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg10448.html
> [2]
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-mmusic#_Interactive_Connectivity_Establishment
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

-- 
Emil Ivov, Ph.D.                       67000 Strasbourg,
Project Lead                           France
Jitsi
emcho@jitsi.org                        PHONE: +33.1.77.62.43.30
https://jitsi.org                       FAX:   +33.1.77.62.47.31