MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5261704B.9090307@nostrum.com>
References: <526147C3.9040204@ericsson.com>
 <CAPvvaa+8osKGTNCS6RJywS9Bmf+RdbnChN=XqA9d+gLnBBAGow@mail.gmail.com>
 <5261704B.9090307@nostrum.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:34:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-0dFsd1jxkaMMMAx36ezLex7tTWvy8XnDS8Ak26roz8Xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01176b43aaa62c04e90831f1
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?QXJpIEtlcsOkbmVu?= <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>,
 mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] ICE-bis: pacing of ICE connectivity checks
Precedence: list

--089e01176b43aaa62c04e90831f1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>

--089e01176b43aaa62c04e90831f1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">FWIW, we are now doing trials to understand what is the ab=
solute lower bound for ICE checks on today&#39;s internet (i.e. what is the=
 minimum time to allow for a NAT to create a new UDP binding).</div><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_extra">

<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Adam R=
oach <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:adam@nostrum.com" target=3D"_b=
lank">adam@nostrum.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1=
ex">


 =20
   =20
 =20
  <div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000"><div class=3D"im">
    <div>On 10/18/13 09:44, Emil Ivov wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite">
      <pre>It might be worth reminding exactly what these 50ms would be
protecting us against</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br></div>
    They&#39;re protecting us against RTP arriving at a rate of 20ms per
    packet.<div class=3D"im"><br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite">
      <pre>and why is it that we don&#39;t need to be
protected against it in the case of RTP where 20ms is accepted as a
fine default value.
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br></div>
    Well, it&#39;s not. This is exactly why we ended up requiring ICE: it
    ensures explicit consent before you start blowing media at someone.<br>
    <br>
    See also
   =20
    <a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg04589=
.html" target=3D"_blank">http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/curren=
t/msg04589.html</a><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
    <br>
    /a<br>
  </font></span></div>

<br>_______________________________________________<br>
mmusic mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:mmusic@ietf.org">mmusic@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic" target=3D"_blank">=
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--089e01176b43aaa62c04e90831f1--