Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Wed, 05 October 2011 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@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 5CCCB11E8103 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.422, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 vnulDprJN3nc for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334E811E8094 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=2316; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317848799; x=1319058399; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=fFOiWo6EZHSsl89Iu5Hr3nsFEpPAMjtgN1n5M7jmnxg=; b=iIJXeQKldhRiyPZ232e17SpH+87ezCC7DydQP61Kc08YUnRvtLo4wAM/ 9p7oO/+nfXQL7bXdr5Ga/dU0KzqWodngBh2wABF4gOxJoHnhBKtg5vahf uyJIU50DPG1mQnuDj809PB0rZnqT3/BzxDW/hoGUQI0on7y1FjhV7JwlN k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAKjFjE6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABCqBqBBYFTAQEBAQIBAQEBDwFUBwsQCw4KLicwBhMih1sGmGoBnhaGSGEEh3yLcYUnjDw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,493,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="6148310"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Oct 2011 21:06:39 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (sjc-fluffy-8914.cisco.com [10.20.249.165]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p95L6cR4004364; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 21:06:38 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <05B54E0C-B867-4D7F-825D-2E008E69B07F@acmepacket.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:06:38 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8FDA4100-55AA-4B84-A6F9-057742FFBB49@cisco.com>
References: <CAD5OKxtNjmWBz92bRuxka7e-BUpTPgVUvr3ahJGpmZ-U5nuPbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSmz5T_F+SK2EoBQm6T-iRKp7dd4j8ZAF5JKdbbyomZQA@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmO54HC+g9L_DYn4jtXAAbLEvS++qxKa6TNrLDREs9SeA@mail.gmail.com> <4E80984A.903@skype.net> <CALiegfmyvTb57WVooKryS-ubfcg+w5gZ+zfO1zzBLn3609AzaA@mail.gmail.com> <4E809EE6.2050702@skype.net> <CAD5OKxvUOadaU0dnB7-Ho9cZ92VY+4Owuhj7oKPCx9Jy1iwT1Q@mail.gmail.com> <C2DF2C51-B3F7-443D-A047-7E6FB03E6D20@phonefromhere.com> <CAOJ7v-3AJJcdrCKcH4AJmv_016sZtcOPOo8yCv3Va65eJogAkQ@mail.gmail.com> <53C72381-DC23-4A6A-944C-B418791876B0@cisco.com> <CALiegf=nG+KXto9CXfn64CQSp3P5Lfm+S8c0xnA187Fhz=fcrQ@mail.gmail.com> <05B54E0C-B867-4D7F-825D-2E008E69B07F@acmepacket.com>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls
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, 05 Oct 2011 21:03:31 -0000

On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:

> 
> 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).

I have this weird feeling we have had this conversation before but I'm a bit skeptical. What processor are you running SHA-1 on and how many STUN requests per second do you think might be reasonable for carrier grade box (whatever "Carrier Grade" is :-). The implementation I have been involved with, the SHA-1 is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall processing to setup a new call. 


> 
> 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
>