IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Thu, 02 August 2012 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
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 9EF9011E8118 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ySWpHQazp58B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B356C11E8072 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=1207; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1343951165; x=1345160765; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zvI1KUbwxcqZDB+hzkhGP3Pc05CI6fAJpLkIzhHmL8k=; b=hJ7bgDM5Ex+/LCrTCb9VXUrBGwtptnTsWUCNQ+kwCdfk4V99bEskZ1yG kd9kpbu56zqRk0Nk0P8cNaAcs4hfJXwixtsed6qsGOvPTZzqzeONmVFB0 D2NWa/KB8Fzc50FFuumwDG6EhHApSSHVp/HUsFnMDckUvZCxTPWopuxV2 A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhEFAFoQG1CQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABFhXujY489gQeCIAEBAQQICgEQB08MAQMCCQ8CBAEBAQICIwMCAhkIGwoJCAEBBBMLF4dcAwycfI0ZiVcNiU6BIYlCZxuFV4ESA4hNhQyGG4xdgx2BZoJ/
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,704,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="7089968"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Aug 2012 23:46:04 +0000
Received: from dwingWS (sjc-vpn6-1214.cisco.com [10.21.124.190]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q72Nk3WT031703; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 23:46:03 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Martin Thomson' <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <038b01cd70d6$8c5bc870$a5135950$@com> <CABkgnnW+pCnDZuYHDj6=7xdqRwM6AO48RrC1xhMrvFZbUBgtyw@mail.gmail.com> <04ff01cd7104$be09bed0$3a1d3c70$@com> <CABkgnnUSF0A5Wk8gM5ewbow_BwqUOgytcMniGgYXWSQaOkpPFA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUSF0A5Wk8gM5ewbow_BwqUOgytcMniGgYXWSQaOkpPFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:46:02 -0700
Message-ID: <051e01cd7108$fab81ee0$f0285ca0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac1xBX2fJAeN8Y1OQra/U7QeEjttPgAA0yvQ
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics
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: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 23:46:06 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 4:21 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics
> 
> On 2 August 2012 16:15, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
> >> We might want to consider other options for things like power saving
> >> in addition to this.  One option that springs to mind is the ability
> >> to explicitly shut down streams that aren't in use and pay the price
> >> for warm-up.  Optimizations to candidate pair select at warm-up
> might
> >> be handy in this case.
> >
> > Such as draft-westerlund-avtext-rtp-stream-pause?
> 
> That would work at the RTP layer.  That could flow down to the UDP
> flow, but resumption is non-trivial.  If you lose the NAT bindings as
> a result, you would have to be prepared to restart the flow.  The
> (previously) active flow might simply have to represent the highest
> priority candidate pair in an ICE reboot.

Thanks.

Perhaps modeling the long-duration stopped flow as a long-duration
mobility event (draft-wing-mmusic-ice-mobility) might be worthwhile;
they feel the same to me at the moment.

-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email