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

On Oct 19, 2013, at 05:33 AM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:

> Hey Adam,
> 
> On 18.10.13, 19:30, Adam Roach 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.
> 
> That would indeed be one of the reasons to pace checks (in addition to fragile NAT boxes IIRC), however in either case, I fail to realise why we need a different pacing strategy for non-RTP. This is what I was asking about.
> 
> Connectivity check hammers can still resort to RTP if the pacing timer is their only problem and I don't see why shaky NATs would tolerate a 20ms rate for RTP but only a 50ms for anything else.
> 
> This entire separation sounds quite arbitrary right now. I see why we would pick a value that we consider somewhat safe and secure but I don't understand why we would need two!?

I agree. No need to add more complexity. ICE should be ignorant of what traffic goes through the pinholes.

.-.
Pål-Erik

> 
> Emil
> 
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> https://jitsi.org
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic