Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] ICE-bis: pacing of ICE connectivity checks

From: Ari Keränen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:45:52 +0200

Hi Justin,

We discussed this issue at the previous IETF meeting and back then you 
were doing large scale measurements with Chrome on the sensible 
connectivity check values. Did you come into some conclusions with those 
studies? Anything new we could recommend based on the results?

Cheers,
Ari

On 18/10/13 21:34, Justin Uberti wrote:
> FWIW, we are now doing trials to understand what is the absolute lower
> bound for ICE checks on today's internet (i.e. what is the minimum time
> to allow for a NAT to create a new UDP binding).
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     On 10/18/13 09:44, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>     It might be worth reminding exactly what these 50ms would be
>>     protecting us against
>
>     They're protecting us against RTP arriving at a rate of 20ms per packet.
>
>
>>     and why is it that we don't need to be
>>     protected against it in the case of RTP where 20ms is accepted as a
>>     fine default value.
>
>     Well, it's not. This is exactly why we ended up requiring ICE: it
>     ensures explicit consent before you start blowing media at someone.
>
>     See also
>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg04589.html
>
>     /a
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     mmusic mailing list
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>