draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness-01.txt   draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness-02.txt 
MMUSIC P. Martinsen MMUSIC P. Martinsen
Internet-Draft T. Reddy Internet-Draft T. Reddy
Intended status: Standards Track P. Patil Intended status: Informational P. Patil
Expires: December 24, 2015 Cisco Expires: March 10, 2016 Cisco
June 22, 2015 September 7, 2015
ICE Multihomed and IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack Fairness ICE Multihomed and IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack Fairness
draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness-01 draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness-02
Abstract Abstract
This document provides guidelines on how to make Interactive This document provides guidelines on how to make Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE) conclude faster in multihomed and Connectivity Establishment (ICE) conclude faster in multihomed and
IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack scenarios where broken paths exist. The IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack scenarios where broken paths exist. The
provided guidelines are backwards compatible with the original ICE provided guidelines are backwards compatible with the original ICE
specification. specification.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 24, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 10, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Improving ICE Multihomed Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Improving ICE Multihomed Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Improving ICE Dual Stack Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Improving ICE Dual Stack Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. ICE-Dual Starck Fairness Test code . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. ICE-Dual Starck Fairness Test code . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Applications should take special care to deprioritize network Applications should take special care to deprioritize network
interfaces known to provide unreliable connectivity when operating in interfaces known to provide unreliable connectivity when operating in
a multihomed environment. For example certain tunnel services might a multihomed environment. For example certain tunnel services might
provide unreliable connectivity. Doing so will ensure a more fair provide unreliable connectivity. Doing so will ensure a more fair
distribution of the connectivity checks across available network distribution of the connectivity checks across available network
interfaces on the device. The simple guidelines presented here interfaces on the device. The simple guidelines presented here
describes how to deprioritize interfaces known by the application to describes how to deprioritize interfaces known by the application to
provide unreliable connectivity. provide unreliable connectivity.
There is a also a need to introduce more fairness when handling of There is a also a need to introduce more fairness when handling
connectivity checks for different IP address families in dual-stack connectivity checks for different IP address families in dual-stack
IPv4/IPv6 ICE scenarios. Section 4.1.2.1 of ICE [RFC5245] points to IPv4/IPv6 ICE scenarios. Section 4.1.2.1 of ICE [RFC5245] points to
[RFC3484] for prioritizing among the different IP families. [RFC3484] for prioritizing among the different IP families.
[RFC3484] is obsoleted by [RFC6724] but following the recommendations [RFC3484] is obsoleted by [RFC6724] but following the recommendations
from the updated RFC will lead to prioritization of IPv6 over IPv4 from the updated RFC will lead to prioritization of IPv6 over IPv4
for the same candidate type. Due to this, connectivity checks for for the same candidate type. Due to this, connectivity checks for
candidates of the same type (host, reflexive or relay) are sent such candidates of the same type (host, reflexive or relay) are sent such
that an IP address family is completely depleted before checks from that an IP address family is completely depleted before checks from
the other address family are started. This results in user the other address family are started. This results in user
noticeable setup delays if the path for the prioritized address noticeable setup delays if the path for the prioritized address
skipping to change at page 3, line 4 skipping to change at page 3, line 7
the other address family are started. This results in user the other address family are started. This results in user
noticeable setup delays if the path for the prioritized address noticeable setup delays if the path for the prioritized address
family is broken. family is broken.
To avoid such user noticeable delays when either IPv6 or IPv4 path is To avoid such user noticeable delays when either IPv6 or IPv4 path is
broken or excessive slow, this specification encourages intermingling broken or excessive slow, this specification encourages intermingling
the different address families when connectivity checks are the different address families when connectivity checks are
performed. Introducing IP address family fairness into ICE performed. Introducing IP address family fairness into ICE
connectivity checks will lead to more sustained dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 connectivity checks will lead to more sustained dual-stack IPv4/IPv6
deployment as users will no longer have an incentive to disable IPv6. deployment as users will no longer have an incentive to disable IPv6.
The cost is a small penalty to the address type that otherwise would The cost is a small penalty to the address type that otherwise would
have been prioritized. have been prioritized.
This document describes how to fairly order the candidates in This document describes how to fairly order the candidates in
multihomed and dual-stack environments, thus affecting the sending multihomed and dual-stack environments, thus affecting the sending
order of the connectivity checks. Ultimately it is up to the agent order of the connectivity checks. If aggressive nomination is in
to decide what candidate pair is best suited for transporting media. use, this will have an effect on what candidate pair ends up as the
active one. Ultimately it should be up to the agent to decide what
candidate pair is best suited for transporting media.
The guidelines outlined in this specification are backward compatible The guidelines outlined in this specification are backward compatible
with a standard ICE implementation. This specification only alters with a standard ICE implementation. This specification only alters
the values used to create the resulting checklists in such a way that the values used to create the resulting checklists in such a way that
the core mechanisms from ICE [RFC5245] are still in effect. The the core mechanisms from ICE [RFC5245] are still in effect. The
introduced fairness might be better, but not worse than what exists introduced fairness might be better, but not worse than what exists
today. today.
2. Notational Conventions 2. Notational Conventions
skipping to change at page 7, line 23 skipping to change at page 7, line 23
The agent that has promoted IPv4 cautiously i.e. lower IPv4 candidate The agent that has promoted IPv4 cautiously i.e. lower IPv4 candidate
priority values compared to the other agent, will influence the check priority values compared to the other agent, will influence the check
list the most due to (2^32*MIN(G,D)) in the formula. list the most due to (2^32*MIN(G,D)) in the formula.
These recommendations are backward compatible with a standard ICE These recommendations are backward compatible with a standard ICE
implementation. The resulting local and remote checklist will still implementation. The resulting local and remote checklist will still
be synchronized. The introduced fairness might be better, but not be synchronized. The introduced fairness might be better, but not
worse than what exists today worse than what exists today
If aggressive nomination is in use the procedures described in this
document might change what candidate pair ends up as the active one.
A test implementation with an example algorithm is available A test implementation with an example algorithm is available
[ICE_dualstack_imp]. [ICE_dualstack_imp].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
None. None.
7. Security Considerations 7. Implementation Status
[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and reference to
[RFC6982] prior to publication.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC6982].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC6982], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
7.1. ICE-Dual Starck Fairness Test code
Organization: Cisco
Description: Open-Source ICE, TURN and STUN implementation.
Implementation: https://github.com/palerikm/ICE-DualStackFairness
Level of maturity: Code is stable. Tests
Coverage: Follows the recommendations in this document
Licensing: BSD
Implementation experience: Straightforward as there are no
compatibility issues.
Contact: Paal-Erik Martinsen palmarti@cisco.com
7.2. ICE-Dual Starck Fairness Test code
Organization: Others
Description: Major ICE implementations, browser based and stand-
alone ICE, TURN and STUN implementations.
Implementation: Product specific.
Level of maturity: Code is stable and available in the wild.
Coverage: Implements the recommendations in this document.
Licensing: Some open source, some close source
Implementation experience: Already implemented in some of the
implementations. This documents describes what needs to be done
to achieve the desired fairness.
8. Security Considerations
STUN connectivity check using MAC computed during key exchanged in STUN connectivity check using MAC computed during key exchanged in
the signaling channel provides message integrity and data origin the signaling channel provides message integrity and data origin
authentication as described in section 2.5 of [RFC5245] apply to this authentication as described in section 2.5 of [RFC5245] apply to this
use. use.
8. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Dan Wing, Ari Keranen, Bernard Aboba, Authors would like to thank Dan Wing, Ari Keranen, Bernard Aboba,
Martin Thomson, Jonathan Lennox, Balint Menyhart, Ole Troan and Simon Martin Thomson, Jonathan Lennox, Balint Menyhart, Ole Troan and Simon
Perreault for their comments and review. Perreault for their comments and review.
9. References 10. References
9.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, DOI 10.17487/
RFC3484, February 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3484>.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment [RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, DOI
2010. 10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245>.
[RFC6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with [RFC6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, April 2012. Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, DOI 10.17487/RFC6555, April
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6555>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012. (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
9.2. Informative References [RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982, DOI
10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6982>.
10.2. Informative References
[ICE_dualstack_imp] [ICE_dualstack_imp]
Martinsen, P., "ICE DualStack Test Implementation github Martinsen, P., "ICE DualStack Test Implementation github
repo", <https://github.com/palerikm/ICE- repo", <https://github.com/palerikm/ICE-
DualStackFairness>. DualStackFairness>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Paal-Erik Martinsen Paal-Erik Martinsen
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
27 lines changed or deleted 109 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/