Re: [MMUSIC] Merging ICE aggressive and regular nomination (was Re: [tram] Comment on draft-williams-peer-redirect-01: might it not converge?)

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Wed, 30 July 2014 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <emcho@sip-communicator.org>
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 9F0F21A0113 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 JpM0fdyuKhUK for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f171.google.com (mail-vc0-f171.google.com [209.85.220.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F04731A005D for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hq11so2907507vcb.30 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=u490RRUSqPvra/btkGDYc1qODI93xwrk63lsul15W6I=; b=cotkU4A9l5CDUcnDLQaOIAKa26LphtIhT+1VlqRrJ09P7fyR0YqHtDpD2HBvi2kFw6 6oRFDMhtIKfeuWLKaEdlEhtG5dBvHV+9KWBHndWiFnCa2rwACuGsThbMjJyxPnPqwAlF CaqXSGC99zgFF6l9NdoHagf8buzrgOB1jlJjdBQRLQPdXOZXijHP+0/ihm6sh/25xt3W v3AUun1Lhoeejcg5uFye+oA3qEJDXl2j0Zt6mIchHnqkRIOcsx38sbXhYWqovozzlOqB e2GSS7Nv10JAh82ESipcVwJylrHXjhUf55OeIGW349ipeMLKvNPoAOVACGeHlIIRA4KH xP7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmBB29EjJcpNFsbKnscgsVXuISQQ7Fo5m03FxKIoEQAzO0q8CQPKFUHVQ+pxnLDcAi1HWVm
X-Received: by 10.52.244.81 with SMTP id xe17mr11127522vdc.24.1406756936945; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com (mail-vc0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id td9sm1851341veb.8.2014.07.30.14.48.56 for <mmusic@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ik5so2900261vcb.34 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.171.233 with SMTP id ax9mr5568713vdc.76.1406756936164; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.238.75 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.238.75 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B2794643-ADB5-4B66-98DC-841990C85437@vidyo.com>
References: <0DA61D09-6491-4DA4-8B6F-CFED70584A76@vidyo.com> <CAOJ7v-1jLK7dWDkWHKwHJ6qXicZWDNrAqOtw9R=6zAcWzkh5+g@mail.gmail.com> <53D796E5.9040009@jive.com> <2AF26344-DF5D-493C-96BC-80AD7DF35444@vidyo.com> <CAOJ7v-0HEjQQ+j0cAVc5r3Y4LxaoGF7EN2twGG6vTuMmEeragQ@mail.gmail.com> <8D2E9E91-B0B7-4081-B65B-EDAEC4D23A97@vidyo.com> <CAOJ7v-1HzGoUNXjvXph0-8WfpM6-vFJ+yDWhVw1_1grfrVD1Vw@mail.gmail.com> <B2794643-ADB5-4B66-98DC-841990C85437@vidyo.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 23:48:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPvvaa+oEe=FveAt2GtcG3ut8sVCbQYsr9sVxuHigD+3+oMa0w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
To: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158ca7e7749b104ff701f76
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/wmw4r0djjvFVMNNW_0hJOHwly1k
Cc: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Merging ICE aggressive and regular nomination (was Re: [tram] Comment on draft-williams-peer-redirect-01: might it not converge?)
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: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 21:49:01 -0000

The main problem with the aggressive version of regular nomination is stuff
like DTLS/SRTP (that's actually already kind of an issue with today's
aggressive nomination).

When it's RTP you don't care where you get it from as long as you do. If
it's a DTLS client halo then what do you do exactly?

Can the controlling agent simply respond on a different valid pair than the
one on which it received it? (This is what Chrome currently does but its
frowned upon by the DTLS/SRTP draft which binds the context to a specific
address:port). Does the controlled agent need to resend it on the new pair
after it gets the USE-CANDIDATE?

What about other protocols? Do they all need to say how they are to be used
with ICE? I hope not and I hope we can find a generic approach for all of
them. For example: all early non-acknowledged reliable data has to be
resent on the nominated pair. This would imply a DTLS neg restart as Martin
suggested.

--sent from my mobile
On 30 Jul 2014 11:14 PM, "Jonathan Lennox" <jonathan@vidyo.com> wrote:

>
>  On Jul 30, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>
>   On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > The one thing we need to do is update ICE to allow the CONTROLLING side
>> to make dynamic decisions about which pair to use, instead of being forced
>> to use PRIORITY (which is what 5245 says). I am going to try to write this
>> up before Hawaii.
>>
>> This is equivalent to using regular nomination, but saying that an
>> endpoint can send media on any Confirmed candidate pair, not just the
>> Selected one, right?
>>
>
>  It's a bit more than that - the controlled endpoint has to also
> synchronize on the candidate pair, which means that it needs to know what
> its selected pair should be, using logic other than what is outlined in
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#section-11.1.1 (which says use the
> highest priority nominated pair).
>
>  So it becomes:
> - controlling side can pick any nominated candidate pair it wants to be
> its selected pair
> - controlled side should use presence of media from controlling side to
> decide selected pair (for secure media), or some TBD attribute (for
> non-secure media)
> - controlling side can tell controlled side when it is OK to discard
> candidate pairs that it has nominated (so that the controlling side can
> still safely do the switch to a new pair). This is probably done by having
> the controlled side keep all candidates alive that have received a check
> from the controlling side in the past XX seconds.
>
>
>  You’ve just reinvented regular nomination — your “TBD attribute” is
> regular nomination’s USE-CANDIDATE.
>
>  Thus the suggestion I’m making — do regular nomination, but allow media
> to be sent on any valid pair prior to selection.  (Yes, re-reading 5245, I
> should have said “Valid” rather than “Confirmed”.  I mis-remembered the
> terminology.)
>
>    5245 says that an ICE endpoint MUST be prepared to receive media on
>> any candidate, but only sends on the Selected candidate pair.  I don’t know
>> if this means, in practice, that ICE-bis could change to the behavior I’ve
>> described above and still be backward compatible, or if there’d need to be
>> some sort of ice-option negotiation to indicate that this early media (oh,
>> dread phrase) is acceptable.
>>
>
>  Yes, I think we need a new ICE option, or else old ICE impls in the
> controlled role will be surprised when they think the selected pair is A
> but media arrives on B. We've already seen a number of implementations have
> issues with this.
>
>
>  Do they have issues receiving media if there is no selected pair yet?
>  This would be nonconformant with 5245, but nevertheless wouldn’t surprise
> me.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>