Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 14 September 2011 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F025521F8B7D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.34
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.34 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.259, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E9mxVaTAAm-Z for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E760021F8B6C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0215F39E0D2; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:14:31 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Se+ImpjndWBY; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:14:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (62-20-124-50.customer.telia.com [62.20.124.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9110039E098; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:14:30 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E70D2E6.1000809@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:14:30 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB21D@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206648CB0@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB264@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206648CEB@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB2F0@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206648D0F@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB3E5@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB3E5@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:12:24 -0000

On 09/14/11 15:07, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> |Sure, but there is still a max time between the keep-alives.
>> You are free to set it to a very long duration that disables
>> keepalives for all practical purposes (assuming such duration
>> is represented by a 32-bit unsigned integer you can set it to
>> ~136 years).
> Yes, but at the end of the day something has to be sent in order to keep the NAT binding open.
>
>>> |Using e.g. RTP, the media handler would not have to be prepared to
>>> |receive the STUN keep-alives in the first place, it could
>>> |simply just
>>> |relay whatever comes on the media plane.
>> If the media handles can handle STUN binding requests
>> efficiently I don't see why they can't handle STUN binding
>> indications (keepalives) in a similar manner.
> I believe it knows when to expect those. But, in any case, the main reason behind the proposal is to decrease the number of STUN requests.
I think it's a more urgent desire that we should minimize the number of 
variants of protocols in use.
Defining a variant of ICE that modifies the keepalive mechanism seems to 
me like a Bad Idea.

                      Harald