Re: [MMUSIC] prefer IPv6 for ICE dual stack fairness

🔓Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> Thu, 21 May 2015 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A1091A000B for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 09:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YpJSKcY0DqXL for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 09:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 371691A000A for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2015 09:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4794; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1432227253; x=1433436853; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TSb7MdD1Q4/1REDOXpBO/SKkNlkP4aHmTDYEjhGdjSs=; b=XLC6a7PKm66aKZZXYFjd8mcmevFAE9XE1T1n0IrlBHPZRVxkDzKWi20g cKLnIo6ErKt5rulbP9nSWQEWWsGduHtYaKAdBZ8re33kicTO8MzzqitmM gexC3yAd8qcvpEnHIqHcaAJa1LJwqctxE+OfPGVNjCz0Nwx9FpUBlgs8+ 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,470,1427760000"; d="scan'208";a="13773242"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 May 2015 16:54:12 +0000
Received: from [10.24.199.254] ([10.24.199.254]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4LGsBtR009213 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 21 May 2015 16:54:12 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: =?utf-8?Q?=F0=9F=94=93Dan_Wing?= <dwing@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6924B74F-C237-4822-8345-75EE71BB4A0F@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 09:54:11 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4EB5280A-5EF6-4BFD-A5C2-14BCFA0F7999@cisco.com>
References: <D1FE0390-AF23-406B-A7D5-97E5CBF2CC4F@cisco.com> <6924B74F-C237-4822-8345-75EE71BB4A0F@cisco.com>
To: =?utf-8?Q?P=C3=A5l_Martinsen?= <palmarti@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/_tsqRARBCN12K50IZFARSl8Zlq4>
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] prefer IPv6 for ICE dual stack fairness
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 21 May 2015 16:54:15 -0000

On 21-May-2015 05:37 am, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) <palmarti@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On 20 May 2015, at 20:25, Dan Wing (dwing) <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness needs to encourage a preference for IPv6, rather than a fair race of IPv6/IPv4.  There are lots of reasons for that (mostly to help network operators), but recent Facebook research shows preferring IPv6 helps the end user (see link below).  I wrote some suggested text, which might fit alright into the introduction or a Rationale section.  
> Thanks for pointing this out and providing text.
> 
>> Some specific recommendation for algorithmic tweaking in the normative section of the document would be needed, but I don't want to erect that straw-man until folks agree there is value in preferring IPv6.  RFC6555 (“Happy Eyeballs") recommended giving IPv6 a 150ms-250ms preference, but that may well be excessive for ICE.  
> Specific formulas and recommendations is removed from the draft. After “excessive” threats that any formula would be nitpicked to death, because getting such a formula wrong in a RFC would potentially cause some harm. The way the draft is structured now give hint on how to achieve fairness in a way that would not break interop with existing implementations.
> 
> Section 4 do mention RFC 6555, adding some text suggesting the timing proposed there is excessive for ICE usage is probably a good idea. 
> 
>> We should consider if re-transmits (which can be detected with draft-ietf-tram-stun-path-data) should have an impact on the algorithm or if it is premature to write that into a standard.
>> 
> What is described in this draft should happen before any connectivity check are sent. I think data like RTT and retransmits would be valuable for ICE when choosing the active candidate pair. If we manage to go away from alway using the highest priority pair. 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Suggested text:
>> 
>>   "Although the initial connection time over an IP address family
>>   might often correlate to the faster performing network, the actual
>>   throughput, latency, and jitter is difficult to discern with only
>>   one or a few round trips of (small) ICE packets.  
> Agree. But in this draft we have not even sent any packets. We are just trying to figure out a “upfront and fair” distribution of the coming packets. 
> Would adding the above text imply that there is a larger problem needed to be solved? If so should we point out that this draft only solves the upfront fairness packet distribution?

Yes, probably want to say something like:

  "The quality of each candidate-pair path can be determined during ICE connectivity checks (round-trip time, packet loss, jitter) and provide further information regarding path quality.  However, those connectivity metrics do not always correlate to bandwidth or long-term path quality.  So, while this document describes how to fairly order the candidates, the best path can be determined only by using that path."


> 
>> Recent analysis
>>   indicates IPv6 throughput is often faster than IPv4 [Facebook], so
>>   implementations might want to give IPv6 a slight preference over
>>   IPv4 as was suggested by Happy Eyeballs [RFC6555].  
> This is spot on. With current implementations this would ensure IPv6 candidates winning due to a higher priority candidate pair.
> 
>> In the future,
>>   other standards may actively probe IPv4/IPv6 paths or send traffic
>>   on multiple paths (e.g., [I-D.ietf-avtcore-mprtp],
>>   [I-D.tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-multipath]).”
> Yes. ICE can help those actually do that by providing the above protocol like mprtp with the valid list and initial RTT and retrans values. 
> 
> To get a complete valid list the order of how you do checks does not matter, you need to run through them all. But for finding a candidate pair to send media on immediately the order of the checks do play a role. Once a candidate pair is chosen, the rest of the checks can be completed while media is happily flowing on the selected pair. 
> 
>> 
>> [Facebook] http://www.computerworld.com/article/2909628/the-future-is-here-you-may-already-be-using-ipv6.html
>> 
> Can we point to sources like that in an RFC?

We can point to stable references in an RFC.  I would say computerworld.com is not a stable reference.

-d


> 
> .-.
> Pål-Erik
> 
>> -d
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>