From nobody Wed Aug 3 09:01:20 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8855D12DD1A for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:01:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.788 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UBNOt1K93nHi for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:01:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18A2312D19B for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:58:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2019; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1470239905; x=1471449505; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=kFxD8VL0h79Wvhck25nh9BQ9rOihqYtQvXAqD3Zsqhk=; b=a3VlUhUtnR870MXIuunnz0UYABtQI5Abryaklq8WIZnTyBrEFwLO9NUP Ws9KoPedo80YBZ+6kTl+K9I1VewSe+bQZ+eoMee74dk/sroZHzjpRGNGA I80XTEbONK8DkQ66RYEnq+h9OkjwYlXItOtSe3rzJpgJxLS5X4PEtbOSg k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CWBQCPE6JX/5hdJa1dg0VWfK0MjCWBf?= =?us-ascii?q?SSFeQKBSzoSAQEBAQEBAV0nhF8BBQEBODQLEAsYLiEGMAYTiBcDFw66cg2DQwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARcFhiqBeIJVgkOBWiODLIIvBY8MiXQ0hhiGM?= =?us-ascii?q?oI1ColKhWyIK4QFg3clBCuCDx+BbBwyhxiBRAEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,466,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="131877276" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Aug 2016 15:58:24 +0000 Received: from [10.24.63.215] ([10.24.63.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u73FwNlF016409 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:58:24 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: =?utf-8?Q?=F0=9F=94=93Dan_Wing?= In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:58:22 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Martin Thomson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-Authenticated-User: dwing Archived-At: Cc: ice@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ice] Example of data transmission without congestion control X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 16:01:19 -0000 I don't know the context to your post, as I wasn't at Berlin ICE = meeting. So perhaps I am speaking out of context. I'll bring up my = point anyway. (Effectively) all Internet access around the world is asymmetric = bandwidth. Two examples: Comcast's advertised 150Mbps speed provides = 20Mbps upstream, and ADSL advertised 6Mbps downstream speed typically = provides about 600kbps upstream. Are we comfortable flooding these = smaller upstream links? I feel comfortable at 20Mbps, but I feel less = comfortable at 600kbps. This is one reason ICE originally paced itself = to not exceed the bandwidth of the SDP-advertised codec. -d On 21-Jul-2016 03:01 am, Martin Thomson = wrote: >=20 > I forgot to add my sources: >=20 > This is highly relevant: > https://insouciant.org/tech/network-congestion-and-web-browsing/ >=20 > On 21 July 2016 at 11:57, Martin Thomson = wrote: >> In HTTP/1.1, browsers will open 6 connections to the same site. Many >> sites are now deploying TCP stacks with an initial congestion window >> of 10. If we assume an MSS of 1400, that means that some sites will >> send 1400*10*6 bytes without congestion control. Most likely, these >> 840 kilobits will arrive in less than a second. 840kbps is more than >> we are asking for with ICE. >>=20 >> In practice, this can be worse because with TLS you have a round trip >> over which the window is increased, though it's probably just one or >> two packets more. >>=20 >> We also have examples of sites that use domain sharding to increase >> the connection limit to as much as 30. That does horrific things to >> the network, so I don't think that we should use that as an argument. >> I tend to think that 6*IW10 is also pretty dicey, but it's an example >> of something that is widely deployed. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ice mailing list > Ice@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice From nobody Wed Aug 3 23:48:53 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ice@ietf.org Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39DB12D103; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 23:48:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.29.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160804064851.9603.76476.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 23:48:51 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ice@ietf.org Subject: [Ice] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04.txt X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 06:48:52 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Interactive Connectivity Establishment of the IETF. Title : ICE Multihomed and IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack Fairness Authors : Paal-Erik Martinsen Tirumaleswar Reddy Prashanth Patil Filename : draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2016-08-03 Abstract: This document provides guidelines on how to make Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) conclude faster in multihomed and IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack scenarios where broken paths exist. The provided guidelines are backwards compatible with the original ICE specification. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Aug 3 23:59:33 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FC412D11A; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 23:59:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.808 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7fuc-0rimazR; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 23:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BAA212B036; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 23:59:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2788; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1470293970; x=1471503570; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=PPH5eNhDTh2kYzNzUrD7o/UGg7kMl5xpiOIKAGXx3EI=; b=enVCOEciy87HbYrLnk3GRtgLF7znuMXIOum8TpRktvZ7C5G0pV1HvJTG fSSe2zlJfHmULm9D5yF4ZURiCaLAKu9KDAJAUaTwxTPU69hYpdRMl07EO NJ89CkCAO5EIv6FY2CyvoABpRcwOPFoZ326f1KSu0e2hN+OGh0Rkbduaj M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A4AgDg5qJX/4kNJK1dg0VWfAe5GYF9J?= =?us-ascii?q?IV5AhyBMTgUAQEBAQEBAV0cC4RfAQUBASEROgsQAgEIGAICJgICAiULFRACBA4?= =?us-ascii?q?FiDEOr0ePewEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARyBAYUpgXiCVYRAgwErgi8Fm?= =?us-ascii?q?TQBhheIaIFrToQNiHqMMIN2AR42g3puhyZ/AQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,469,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="132124516" Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 04 Aug 2016 06:59:29 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com (xch-rcd-018.cisco.com [173.37.102.28]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u746xTj0019614 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 06:59:29 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-019.cisco.com (173.37.102.29) by XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com (173.37.102.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 01:59:29 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-019.cisco.com ([173.37.102.29]) by XCH-RCD-019.cisco.com ([173.37.102.29]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 01:59:28 -0500 From: "Pal Martinsen (palmarti)" To: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Ice] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04.txt Thread-Index: AQHR7hxGvfze5Cc9H0WlsQFb37mMRaA4sxUA Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 06:59:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160804064851.9603.76476.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20160804064851.9603.76476.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.61.217.3] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <15449F8F887BEA4D90C0FE90736F42B5@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ice@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Ice] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04.txt X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 06:59:32 -0000 SGksDQoNClRoaXMgZml4ZXMgY29tbWVudHMgZnJvbSBHRU4tYXJ0IGFuZCBzZWNkaXIgcmV2aWV3 LiANCg0KU2VjdXJpdHkgc2VjdGlvbiBnb3QgYW4gb3ZlcmhhdWwsIHNvIHBsZWFzZSB0YWtlIGEg Y2xvc2UgbG9vayBhdCB0aGF0LiANCg0KQWxzbyByZW1vdmVkIHNvbWUgb2NjdXJyZW5jZXMgd2hl cmUgYWdncmVzc2l2ZSBub21pbmF0aW9uIHdhcyBtZW50aW9uZWQuIEluc2VydGVkIHdvcmRpbmcg bGlrZTsg4oCcZGVwZW5kZW50IG9mIHRoZSBub21pbmF0aW9uIG1ldGhvZCBpbiB1c2UuLuKAnSB0 byBiZXR0ZXIgcmVmbGVjdCBwb3NzaWJsZSB1cGNvbWluZyBJQ0UgY2hhbmdlcy4NCg0KIA0KLi0u DQpQw6VsLUVyaWsNCj4gT24gMDQgQXVnIDIwMTYsIGF0IDA4OjQ4LCBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNA aWV0Zi5vcmcgd3JvdGU6DQo+IA0KPiANCj4gQSBOZXcgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnQgaXMgYXZhaWxh YmxlIGZyb20gdGhlIG9uLWxpbmUgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnRzIGRpcmVjdG9yaWVzLg0KPiBUaGlz IGRyYWZ0IGlzIGEgd29yayBpdGVtIG9mIHRoZSBJbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSBDb25uZWN0aXZpdHkgRXN0 YWJsaXNobWVudCBvZiB0aGUgSUVURi4NCj4gDQo+ICAgICAgICBUaXRsZSAgICAgICAgICAgOiBJ Q0UgTXVsdGlob21lZCBhbmQgSVB2NC9JUHY2IER1YWwgU3RhY2sgRmFpcm5lc3MNCj4gICAgICAg IEF1dGhvcnMgICAgICAgICA6IFBhYWwtRXJpayBNYXJ0aW5zZW4NCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIFRpcnVtYWxlc3dhciBSZWRkeQ0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg UHJhc2hhbnRoIFBhdGlsDQo+IAlGaWxlbmFtZSAgICAgICAgOiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWljZS1kdWFs c3RhY2stZmFpcm5lc3MtMDQudHh0DQo+IAlQYWdlcyAgICAgICAgICAgOiAxMA0KPiAJRGF0ZSAg ICAgICAgICAgIDogMjAxNi0wOC0wMw0KPiANCj4gQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQo+ICAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVu dCBwcm92aWRlcyBndWlkZWxpbmVzIG9uIGhvdyB0byBtYWtlIEludGVyYWN0aXZlDQo+ICAgQ29u bmVjdGl2aXR5IEVzdGFibGlzaG1lbnQgKElDRSkgY29uY2x1ZGUgZmFzdGVyIGluIG11bHRpaG9t ZWQgYW5kDQo+ICAgSVB2NC9JUHY2IGR1YWwtc3RhY2sgc2NlbmFyaW9zIHdoZXJlIGJyb2tlbiBw YXRocyBleGlzdC4gIFRoZQ0KPiAgIHByb3ZpZGVkIGd1aWRlbGluZXMgYXJlIGJhY2t3YXJkcyBj b21wYXRpYmxlIHdpdGggdGhlIG9yaWdpbmFsIElDRQ0KPiAgIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24uDQo+IA0K PiANCj4gVGhlIElFVEYgZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIgc3RhdHVzIHBhZ2UgZm9yIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgaXM6 DQo+IGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtaWNlLWR1YWxz dGFjay1mYWlybmVzcy8NCj4gDQo+IFRoZXJlJ3MgYWxzbyBhIGh0bWxpemVkIHZlcnNpb24gYXZh aWxhYmxlIGF0Og0KPiBodHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1pY2Ut ZHVhbHN0YWNrLWZhaXJuZXNzLTA0DQo+IA0KPiBBIGRpZmYgZnJvbSB0aGUgcHJldmlvdXMgdmVy c2lvbiBpcyBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQ6DQo+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/dXJs Mj1kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWljZS1kdWFsc3RhY2stZmFpcm5lc3MtMDQNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBQbGVhc2Ug bm90ZSB0aGF0IGl0IG1heSB0YWtlIGEgY291cGxlIG9mIG1pbnV0ZXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgdGltZSBv ZiBzdWJtaXNzaW9uDQo+IHVudGlsIHRoZSBodG1saXplZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGFuZCBkaWZmIGFyZSBh dmFpbGFibGUgYXQgdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcuDQo+IA0KPiBJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdHMgYXJlIGFs c28gYXZhaWxhYmxlIGJ5IGFub255bW91cyBGVFAgYXQ6DQo+IGZ0cDovL2Z0cC5pZXRmLm9yZy9p bnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvDQo+IA0KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiBJY2UgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IEljZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBodHRw czovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2ljZQ0KDQo= From nobody Thu Aug 25 14:07:47 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0771212D1C0; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:07:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eNz4n37WJQWG; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC173126D74; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.9] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u7PL7eDj091879 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:07:40 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.9] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "Pal Martinsen" Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:07:40 -0500 Message-ID: <5663E2C9-8E21-4758-90B5-09C65FB17807@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20160804064851.9603.76476.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234) Archived-At: Cc: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" , "ice@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Ice] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04.txt X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:07:46 -0000 Hi, It's been a few weeks and we haven't seen additional commentary. I therefore put it on the agenda for the IESG Telechat on September 1. Thanks! Ben. On 4 Aug 2016, at 1:59, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: > Hi, > > This fixes comments from GEN-art and secdir review. > > Security section got an overhaul, so please take a close look at that. > > Also removed some occurrences where aggressive nomination was > mentioned. Inserted wording like; “dependent of the nomination > method in use..” to better reflect possible upcoming ICE changes. > > > .-. > Pål-Erik >> On 04 Aug 2016, at 08:48, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Interactive Connectivity >> Establishment of the IETF. >> >> Title : ICE Multihomed and IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack >> Fairness >> Authors : Paal-Erik Martinsen >> Tirumaleswar Reddy >> Prashanth Patil >> Filename : draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04.txt >> Pages : 10 >> Date : 2016-08-03 >> >> Abstract: >> This document provides guidelines on how to make Interactive >> Connectivity Establishment (ICE) conclude faster in multihomed and >> IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack scenarios where broken paths exist. The >> provided guidelines are backwards compatible with the original ICE >> specification. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness/ >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04 >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >> submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ice mailing list >> Ice@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice > > _______________________________________________ > Ice mailing list > Ice@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice From nobody Tue Aug 30 06:54:45 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ice@ietf.org Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40B212D65E; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 06:54:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.31.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147256527848.23813.11022595025051147184.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 06:54:38 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ice-chairs@ietf.org, ari.keranen@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness@ietf.org, ice@ietf.org Subject: [Ice] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:54:39 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for doing this work. The document thinks it's going for Best Current Practice, but the shepherd write-up and datatracker think it's going for Informational. It would be good for that to match ... I'm a little confused by These recommendations are backward compatible with a standard ICE implementation. The resulting local and remote checklist will still be synchronized. The introduced fairness might be better, but not worse than what exists today Is the point that the introduced fairness - might be better, or - might be the same as, but - won't be worse? If so, that wasn't clear to me on first (or second) reading. (Nit: missing period at the end of "what exists today") From nobody Wed Aug 31 05:31:31 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ice@ietf.org Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52C6512DB30; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 05:31:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.31.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147264668629.5913.9417537450161055669.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 05:31:26 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ice-chairs@ietf.org, ari.keranen@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness@ietf.org, ice@ietf.org Subject: [Ice] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-ic?= =?utf-8?q?e-dualstack-fairness-04=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?= X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:31:26 -0000 Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm willing to resolve my discuss quickly but I would like to start some discussion: To me the recommenations given in this doc are not very clear. To my understanding are there two recommenations: 1) intermingle IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, and 2) put lower priority for adresses that are know to have connectivity problem. However, that leaves tons of open questions to the implementor, e.g. - How many IPv6 addresses should I have before the first IPv4? - How do I measure/track that an interface has connectitivy problems: connectivity failed once, or twice, or X-times? How long do I keep this track: 1h, one day, one week, forever? Would it be possible to be more specific and give further guidance? E.g. how are these points implemented in the existing implementations? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Further, I think the term 'fairness' is just wrong here. The goal is to avoid delay in case there are connectivity problems with IPv6 in general, while still prioritizating IPv6. For me, that's nothing about fairness. From nobody Wed Aug 31 12:11:05 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ice@ietf.org Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E789512D6A9; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:11:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Alissa Cooper" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.31.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147267066090.31947.11172844437741066353.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:11:00 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ice-chairs@ietf.org, ari.keranen@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness@ietf.org, ice@ietf.org Subject: [Ice] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:11:01 -0000 Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- = Section 4 = "However, modifying the check list directly can lead to uncoordinated local and remote check lists that result in ICE taking longer to complete or in the worst case scenario fail. The best approach is to modify the formula for calculating the candidate priority value described in ICE [I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis] section "4.1.2.1 Recommended Formula"." ICEbis section 4.1.2.1 then says: "If a host is multihomed because it is dual-stack, the local preference should be set according to the current best practice described in [I-D.ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness]." So, there is a circular reference, and nowhere is it specified how the formula should actually change. I think it's fine to put this in ICEbis, but if this draft is going to reference it then it actually needs to be specified there. Alternatively, if this text is meant to reference the discussion further down in Section 5, I wouldn't call that modifying the formula, but rather providing guidance about how to set local preferences within the formula. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- = Section 3 = "If the agent has access to information about the physical network it is connected to (Like SSID in a WiFi Network) this can be used as information regarding how that network interface should be prioritized at this point in time." I think this needs further elaboration, as it's not obvious how knowledge of the SSID correlates to knowledge of the stability of the network. "Candidates from an interface known to the application to provide unreliable connectivity should get a low candidate priority. This ensures they appear near the end of the candidate list, and would be the last to be tested during the connectivity check phase. This allows candidate pairs more likely to succeed to be tested first." All three of these sentences say more or less the same thing, so two of them could be dropped. = Section 8 = Doesn't following the recommendations in Section 3 potentially leak information to a remote peer about the quality of a local peer's connectivity on different interfaces? That is, if the remote peer maintains some state about past ICE interactions, would it be able to detect a change of priority that could indicate a change in connectivity quality? If so, this seems worth mentioning. From nobody Wed Aug 31 12:53:50 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ice@ietf.org Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5556E12D750; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:53:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Ben Campbell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.31.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147267322932.31924.4025709657382333589.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:53:49 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ice-chairs@ietf.org, ari.keranen@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness@ietf.org, ice@ietf.org Subject: [Ice] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:53:49 -0000 Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The draft is intended as a BCP, but we ran the IETF Last Call as an informational. This is entirely my fault. I'm entering a "process" discuss to hold approval until we can re-run the last call. Let's complete resolve any other issues that come up in IESG evaluation, then I will re-run an abbreviated last call focusing on the status change. From nobody Wed Aug 31 22:19:00 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ice@ietf.org Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3DE12D7E5; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 22:18:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Suresh Krishnan" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.31.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147270713819.31873.6764477510963743918.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 22:18:58 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ice-chairs@ietf.org, ari.keranen@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness@ietf.org, ice@ietf.org Subject: [Ice] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 05:18:58 -0000 Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * Section 4 I am trying to see if there is any background for the following statement "It is worth noting that the timing recommendations in [RFC6555] are not optimal for ICE usage." Why is it not optimal? Do you want smaller or larger timings? Some explanations here would be good. Additionally, it might be worthwhile for this document to provide alternate timing recommendations that *are* optimal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * Agree with Alissa's DISCUSS point. I ran into the same circular reference * Agree with Mirja's comment about fairness being the wrong term to use