[MMUSIC] Updating the pacing of ICE connectivity checks

Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> Thu, 14 February 2013 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ari.keranen@ericsson.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 A65C321F8413 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:49:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WrmPIy6wWN-y for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5129221F81FF for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:49:27 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f366d000004d10-e1-511ceb654be1
Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 7F.9F.19728.56BEC115; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:49:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.1; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:49:25 +0100
Received: from tri62.nomadiclab.com (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597FF233F for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:49:25 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <511CEB64.6070306@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:49:24 +0200
From: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrCJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW7qa5lAgyePLSymLn/M4sDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujANHNjIVfOSs2HF6BXMD42/2LkZODgkBE4lLZ3+xQthiEhfu rWfrYuTiEBI4ySix8s1TJghnA6NEx6b/7BDOKUaJd5M+MIG08ApoS8zdeZAZxGYRUJWYd+wS I4jNJmAvcXPCdbAVogLJEh/vXGOFqBeUODnzCQuILSIgI7F302awXmEBc4mHs+6B1TAL2Epc mHOdBcKWl9j+dg5YjRDQ/Kv/XjFOYOSfhWTULCQts5C0LGBkXsXInpuYmZNebrSJERhSB7f8 Vt3BeOecyCFGaQ4WJXHecNcLAUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmpxYcYmTg4pRoYU6+YvV174Yst j8W7B7clFJe0nDOacWPOW0+V6sT3b57cCxMoXizdmMX9Y90nkbtBGWdOihXLvPaoe3+gv/PD LJnJ+7Zy6U2IWTvn3V+3xy9Up1j911p2bMVGjZUsptIn/jdeeL38Xn62dWZDq8y+ttVdR+5Z xxS9SZbd3MO9sZk5RE8t47Z6vRJLcUaioRZzUXEiABr79fb3AQAA
Subject: [MMUSIC] Updating the pacing of ICE connectivity checks
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: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:49:28 -0000

Hi all,

Updating the pacing parameter, Ta, of ICE for non-RTP traffic (for 
background, see [1] and [2]), as discussed at the Atlanta meeting, will 
be one of the important changes in the new version of ICE.

Currently the RFC5245 says (for non-RTP traffic) "Ta SHOULD be 
configurable, SHOULD have a default of 500 ms, and MUST NOT be 
configurable to be less than 500 ms."

This results in very slow pace of starting connectivity checks if ICE is 
used with non-RTP traffic. With RTP, the Ta is calculated based on the 
expected bandwidth used by the RTP stream and can be down to 20 ms. 
Therefore, many current implementations apparently ignore the "MUST NOT" 
above and set Ta to something lower.

The quite conservative value of 500 ms was originally chosen because of 
the fear of congesting the links with the connectivity check messages. 
This is obviously still a valid concern, but would suggesting something 
lower still make sense? How low would it be reasonably safe to go? What 
is currently used in practice? Can we come up with a formula similar to 
RTP (perhaps based on expected bandwidth usage)?


Cheers,
Ari

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#appendix-B.1
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#section-16.2