Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls

ICE-Lite is easier for gateway-type devices, but it's still got to do the SHA-1 calc per STUN connectivity-check response packet, which is painful from a performance/scale perspective (and thus cost).

That's one of the things we've been arguing about in MMUSIC as being a problem for IPv4/v6 since ICE is the only "official" way to handle a dual-stack offer/answer... and the extra cost incurred for doing ICE is hard to justify since IPv6 transition is an expense with no added "feature".  But no one seems to care about that there, so we've been forced to go outside the IETF. :(

-hadriel

On Sep 28, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:

> 2011/9/28 Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>:
>> Many service providers front end their services with an SBC for a wide variety of reasons - and that is the place they would likely run ICE Lite (note it's not even full ICE they need).
> 
> Just to add information about ICE Lite:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rescorla-mmusic-ice-lite-00
> 
> --------------
>   During the design of ICE, many implementors expressed concern about
>   the complexity of the protocol and the difficulty of implementing it.
>   This draft specifies a compatible simplified subset of ICE called
>   "ICE Lite" which is suitable for implementations which will always be
>   operated with public IP addresses.  One particular environment where
>   ICE Lite is intended to be useful is in SIP-PSTN gateways which are
>   generally directly connected to the Internet.
> --------------
> 
> -- 
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb