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

Sorry, I didn't read this until now. I can check with the team when I get
back and see when we could have some numbers to share.

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
> We discussed this issue at the previous IETF meeting and back then you
> were doing large scale measurements with Chrome on the sensible
> connectivity check values. Did you come into some conclusions with those
> studies? Anything new we could recommend based on the results?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ari
>
>
> On 18/10/13 21:34, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
>> FWIW, we are now doing trials to understand what is the absolute lower
>> bound for ICE checks on today's internet (i.e. what is the minimum time
>> to allow for a NAT to create a new UDP binding).
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com
>> <mailto:adam@nostrum.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 10/18/13 09:44, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>
>>>     It might be worth reminding exactly what these 50ms would be
>>>     protecting us against
>>>
>>
>>     They're protecting us against RTP arriving at a rate of 20ms per
>> packet.
>>
>>
>>      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.
>>>
>>
>>     Well, it's not. This is exactly why we ended up requiring ICE: it
>>     ensures explicit consent before you start blowing media at someone.
>>
>>     See also
>>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg04589.html
>>
>>     /a
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     mmusic mailing list
>>     mmusic@ietf.org <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>>
>