Happy Eyeballs Extension for ICE
draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs-06
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K , Prashanth Patil , Paal-Erik Martinsen | ||
| Last updated | 2014-02-14 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-martinsen-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs-06
MMUSIC T. Reddy
Internet-Draft P. Patil
Intended status: Standards Track P. Martinsen
Expires: August 18, 2014 Cisco
February 14, 2014
Happy Eyeballs Extension for ICE
draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs-06
Abstract
This document provides guidelines on how to make Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE) conclude faster in IPv4/IPv6 dual-
stack scenarios where broken paths exist.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Reddy, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE February 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Improving ICE Dual-stack Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Example Algorithm for Choosing the Local Preference . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. HappyE-ICE-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
There is a need to introduce more fairness in the handling of
connectivity checks for different IP address families in dual-stack
IPv4/IPv6 ICE scenarios. Section 4.1.2.1 of ICE [RFC5245] points to
[RFC3484] for prioritizing among the different IP families.
[RFC3484] is obsoleted by [RFC6724] but following the recommendations
from the updated RFC will lead to prioritization of IPv6 over IPv4
for the same candidate type. Due to this, connectivity checks for
candidates of the same type (HOST, RFLX, RELAY) are sent such that an
IP address family is completely depleted before checks on the other
address family are started. This results in user noticeable setup
delays if the path for the prioritized address family is broken.
To avoid such user noticeable delays when either IPv6 or IPv4 path is
broken, this specification encourages intermingling the different
address families when connectivity checks are conducted. Introducing
IP address family fairness into ICE connectivity checks will lead to
more sustained dual-stack IPv4/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 have been
prioritized.
2. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This document uses terminology defined in [RFC5245].
Reddy, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE February 2014
3. Improving ICE Dual-stack Fairness
Candidates SHOULD be prioritized such that a long sequence of
candidates belonging to the same address family will be intermingled
with candidates from an alternate IP family. For example, promoting
IPv4 candidates in the presence of many IPv6 candidates such that an
IPv4 address candidate is always present after a small sequence of
IPv6 candidates, i.e., reordering candidates such that both IPv6 and
IPv4 candidates get a fair chance during the connectivity check
phase. This makes ICE connectivity checks more responsive to broken
path failures of an address family.
An ICE agent can choose an algorithm or a technique of its choice to
ensure that the resulting check lists have a fair intermingled mix of
IPv4 and IPv6 address families. 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 [RFC5245] section 4.1.2.1.
4. Compatibility
ICE [RFC5245] section 4.1.2 states that the formula in section
4.1.2.1 SHOULD be used to calculate the candidate priority. The
formula is as follows:
priority = (2^24)*(type preference) +
(2^8)*(local preference) +
(2^0)*(256 - component ID)
ICE [RFC5245] section 4.1.2.2 has guidelines for how the type
preference and local preference value should be chosen. Instead of
having a static value for IPv4 and a static value for IPv6 type of
addresses for the local preference, it is possible to choose this
value dynamically in such a way that IPv4 and IPv6 address candidate
priorities ends up intermingled within the same candidate type (HOST,
RFLX, RELAY).
The local and remote agent can have different algorithms for choosing
the local preference value without impacting the synchronization
between the local and remote check list.
The check list is made up by candidate pairs. A candidate pair is
two candidates paired up and given a candidate pair priority as
described in [RFC5245] section 5.7.2. Using the pair priority
formula:
pair priority = 2^32*MIN(G,D) + 2*MAX(G,D) + (G>D?1:0)
Reddy, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE February 2014
Where G is the candidate priority provided by the controlling agent
and D the candidate priority provided by the controlled agent. This
ensures that the local and remote check lists are coordinated.
Even if the two agents have different algorithms for choosing the
candidate priority value to get an intermingled set of IPv4 and IPv6
candidates, the resulting checklist, that is a list sorted by the
pair priority value, will be identical on the two agents.
The agent that has promoted IPv4 cautiously i.e. lower IPv4 candidate
priority values compared to the other agent, will influence the check
list the most due to (2^32*MIN(G,D)) in the formula.
These recommendations are backward compatible with a standard ICE
implementation. If the other agent have IPv4 candidates with higher
priorities due to intermingling, the effect is canceled when the
checklist is formed and the pair priority formula is used to
calculate the pair priority.
5. Example Algorithm for Choosing the Local Preference
The value space for the local preference is from 0 to 65535
inclusive. This value space can be divided up in chunks for each IP
address family.
An IPv6 and IPv4 start priority must be given. In this example IPv6
starts at 60000 and IPv4 at 59000. This leaves enough address space
to further play with the values if pr interface priorities needs to
be added. The highest value should be given to the address family
that should be prioritized.
IPv6 IPv4
Start Start
65535 60k 59k 58k 57k 56k 55k 0
+--------+------+------+------+------+------+---------------------+
| | IPv6 | IPv4 | IPv6 | IPv4 | IPv6 | |
| | (1) | (1) | (2) | (2) | (3) | |
+--------+------+------+------+------+------+---------------------+
<- N->
The local preference can be calculated by the given formula:
local_preference = N*2*(Cn/Cmax)
Where N is the absolute value of IPv6_start-IPv4_start. This ensures
a positive number even if IPv4 is the highest priority. Cn is the
number of current candidates of a specific IP address type and
Reddy, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE February 2014
candidate type (HOST, SRFLX, RELAY). Cmax is the number of allowed
consecutive candidates of the same IP address type.
Using the values N=abs(60000-59000) and Cmax = 2 yields the following
sorted local candidate list:
(1) HOST IPv6 (1) Priority: 2129289471
(2) HOST IPv6 (2) Priority: 2129289470
(3) HOST IPv4 (1) Priority: 2129033471
(4) HOST IPv4 (2) Priority: 2129033470
(5) HOST IPv6 (1) Priority: 2128777471
(6) HOST IPv6 (2) Priority: 2128777470
(7) HOST IPv4 (1) Priority: 2128521471
(8) HOST IPv4 (2) Priority: 2128521470
(9) HOST IPv6 (1) Priority: 2128265471
(10) HOST IPv6 (2) Priority: 2128265470
(11) SRFLX IPv6 (1) Priority: 1693081855
(12) SRFLX IPv6 (2) Priority: 1693081854
(13) SRFLX IPv4 (1) Priority: 1692825855
(14) SRFLX IPv4 (2) Priority: 1692825854
(15) RELAY IPv6 (1) Priority: 15360255
(16) RELAY IPv6 (2) Priority: 15360254
(17) RELAY IPv4 (1) Priority: 15104255
(18) RELAY IPv4 (2) Priority: 15104254
The result is an even spread of IPv6 and IPv4 candidates among the
different candidate types (HOST, SRFLX, RELAY). The local_preference
value is calculated separately for each candidate type.
The resulting checklist will depend on the priorities of the remote
candidates. It is not possible to ensure an even spread of IPv4 and
IPv6 addresses unless both the remote and local sides uses the simple
recommendations in this draft. It is worth noting that there is a
good chance it will some effect even if the remote side does not
support this. It will not break interoperability with other ICE
implementations.
[[Q1: Need to take a closer look at how the unfeezing happens and how
this afffects the component id is the sorting above. --palmarti]]
[[Q2: The implementations of the algorithm does not implement pruning
of the pairs. So the checklist is shorter in real life than the
example in the appendix. --palmarti]]
6. IANA Considerations
None.
Reddy, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE February 2014
7. Security Considerations
STUN connectivity check using MAC computed during key exchanged in
the signaling channel provides message integrity and data origin
authentication as described in section 2.5 of [RFC5245] apply to this
use.
8. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Dan Wing, Ari Keranen, Bernard Aboba,
Martin Thomson, Jonathan Lennox and Balint Menyhart for their
comments and review.
9. 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".
9.1. HappyE-ICE-Test
Organization: Private Initiative (palerikm@gmail.com)
Description: A private initiative to create working code to show
how the recommendations in this draft can be implemented. The
code is publicly available at github.
Implementation: https://github.com/palerikm/HappyE-ICE-Test
Reddy, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE February 2014
Level of maturity: The code only implements the parts that cover
this draft and not a full ICE implementation. There is work in
progress to get this into a full implementation, unfortunately
that source code is not at the current time available to the
public. It is currently not implementing the pruning of the
checklist pairs as described in section 5.7.3 of the ICE RFC.
Coverage: Implement this draft.
Licensing: BSD
Implementation experience: Fiddly. Please not that the developer
also is author of this draft. The implementation also helped
writing parts of this draft.
Contact: Paal-Erik Martinsen <palmarti@gmail.com>.
10. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April
2010.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012.
[RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982, July
2013.
Appendix A. Examples
Reddy, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE February 2014
********** Local Candidates (sorted) *********
(1) HOST IPv6 (1) Priority: 2129289471
(2) HOST IPv6 (2) Priority: 2129289470
(3) HOST IPv4 (1) Priority: 2129033471
(4) HOST IPv4 (2) Priority: 2129033470
(5) HOST IPv6 (1) Priority: 2128777471
(6) HOST IPv6 (2) Priority: 2128777470
(7) HOST IPv4 (1) Priority: 2128521471
(8) HOST IPv4 (2) Priority: 2128521470
(9) HOST IPv6 (1) Priority: 2128265471
(10) HOST IPv6 (2) Priority: 2128265470
(11) SRFLX IPv6 (1) Priority: 1693081855
(12) SRFLX IPv6 (2) Priority: 1693081854
(13) SRFLX IPv4 (1) Priority: 1692825855
(14) SRFLX IPv4 (2) Priority: 1692825854
(15) RELAY IPv6 (1) Priority: 15360255
(16) RELAY IPv6 (2) Priority: 15360254
(17) RELAY IPv4 (1) Priority: 15104255
(18) RELAY IPv4 (2) Priority: 15104254
********** Remote Candidates *********
(1) HOST IPv6 (1) Priority: 2129289471
(2) HOST IPv6 (1) Priority: 2129289471
(3) HOST IPv6 (1) Priority: 2129289471
(4) HOST IPv6 (2) Priority: 2129289470
(5) HOST IPv6 (2) Priority: 2129289470
(6) HOST IPv6 (2) Priority: 2129289470
(7) HOST IPv4 (1) Priority: 2129033471
(8) HOST IPv4 (1) Priority: 2129033471
(9) HOST IPv4 (2) Priority: 2129033470
(10) HOST IPv4 (2) Priority: 2129033470
(11) IPv6 (1) Priority: 1693081855
(12) IPv6 (2) Priority: 1693081854
(13) IPv4 (1) Priority: 1692825855
(14) IPv4 (2) Priority: 1692825854
(15) RELAY IPv6 (1) Priority: 15360255
(16) RELAY IPv6 (2) Priority: 15360254
(17) RELAY IPv4 (1) Priority: 15104255
(18) RELAY IPv4 (2) Priority: 15104254
The pairs have not been pruned a described in section 5.7.3 of the
ICE spec.
********** CheckList *********
0 HOST 6(1) 2129289471 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(9145228645920719358)
1 HOST 6(1) 2129289471 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(9145228645920719358)
Reddy, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE February 2014
2 HOST 6(1) 2129289471 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(9145228645920719358)
3 HOST 6(2) 2129289470 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(9145228641625752060)
4 HOST 6(2) 2129289470 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(9145228641625752060)
5 HOST 6(2) 2129289470 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(9145228641625752060)
6 HOST 4(1) 2129033471 HOST 4(1) 2129033471(9144129134292431358)
7 HOST 4(1) 2129033471 HOST 4(1) 2129033471(9144129134292431358)
8 HOST 4(2) 2129033470 HOST 4(2) 2129033470(9144129129997464060)
9 HOST 4(2) 2129033470 HOST 4(2) 2129033470(9144129129997464060)
10 HOST 6(1) 2128777471 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(9143029622665167358)
11 HOST 6(1) 2128777471 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(9143029622665167358)
12 HOST 6(1) 2128777471 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(9143029622665167358)
13 HOST 6(2) 2128777470 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(9143029618370200060)
14 HOST 6(2) 2128777470 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(9143029618370200060)
15 HOST 6(2) 2128777470 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(9143029618370200060)
16 HOST 4(1) 2128521471 HOST 4(1) 2129033471(9141930111036879358)
17 HOST 4(1) 2128521471 HOST 4(1) 2129033471(9141930111036879358)
18 HOST 4(2) 2128521470 HOST 4(2) 2129033470(9141930106741912060)
19 HOST 4(2) 2128521470 HOST 4(2) 2129033470(9141930106741912060)
20 HOST 6(1) 2128265471 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(9140830599409615358)
21 HOST 6(1) 2128265471 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(9140830599409615358)
22 HOST 6(1) 2128265471 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(9140830599409615358)
23 HOST 6(2) 2128265470 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(9140830595114648060)
24 HOST 6(2) 2128265470 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(9140830595114648060)
25 HOST 6(2) 2128265470 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(9140830595114648060)
26 HOST 6(1) 2129289471 SRFLX 6(1) 1693081855(7271731200934593023)
27 SRFLX 6(1) 1693081855 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(7271731200934593022)
28 SRFLX 6(1) 1693081855 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(7271731200934593022)
29 SRFLX 6(1) 1693081855 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(7271731200934593022)
30 HOST 6(1) 2128777471 SRFLX 6(1) 1693081855(7271731200933569023)
31 HOST 6(1) 2128265471 SRFLX 6(1) 1693081855(7271731200932545023)
32 SRFLX 6(1) 1693081855 SRFLX 6(1) 1693081855(7271731200062177790)
33 HOST 6(2) 2129289470 SRFLX 6(2) 1693081854(7271731196639625725)
34 SRFLX 6(2) 1693081854 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(7271731196639625724)
35 SRFLX 6(2) 1693081854 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(7271731196639625724)
36 SRFLX 6(2) 1693081854 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(7271731196639625724)
37 HOST 6(2) 2128777470 SRFLX 6(2) 1693081854(7271731196638601725)
38 HOST 6(2) 2128265470 SRFLX 6(2) 1693081854(7271731196637577725)
39 SRFLX 6(2) 1693081854 SRFLX 6(2) 1693081854(7271731195767210492)
40 HOST 4(1) 2129033471 SRFLX 4(1) 1692825855(7270631689306305023)
41 SRFLX 4(1) 1692825855 HOST 4(1) 2129033471(7270631689306305022)
42 SRFLX 4(1) 1692825855 HOST 4(1) 2129033471(7270631689306305022)
43 HOST 4(1) 2128521471 SRFLX 4(1) 1692825855(7270631689305281023)
44 SRFLX 4(1) 1692825855 SRFLX 4(1) 1692825855(7270631688433889790)
45 HOST 4(2) 2129033470 SRFLX 4(2) 1692825854(7270631685011337725)
46 SRFLX 4(2) 1692825854 HOST 4(2) 2129033470(7270631685011337724)
47 SRFLX 4(2) 1692825854 HOST 4(2) 2129033470(7270631685011337724)
48 HOST 4(2) 2128521470 SRFLX 4(2) 1692825854(7270631685010313725)
49 SRFLX 4(2) 1692825854 SRFLX 4(2) 1692825854(7270631684138922492)
Reddy, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE February 2014
50 HOST 6(1) 2129289471 RELAY 6(1) 15360255 (65971797141799423)
51 RELAY 6(1) 15360255 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(65971797141799422)
52 RELAY 6(1) 15360255 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(65971797141799422)
53 RELAY 6(1) 15360255 HOST 6(1) 2129289471(65971797141799422)
54 HOST 6(1) 2128777471 RELAY 6(1) 15360255 (65971797140775423)
55 HOST 6(1) 2128265471 RELAY 6(1) 15360255 (65971797139751423)
56 SRFLX 6(1) 1693081855 RELAY 6(1) 15360255 (65971796269384191)
57 RELAY 6(1) 15360255 SRFLX 6(1) 1693081855(65971796269384190)
58 RELAY 6(1) 15360255 RELAY 6(1) 15360255 (65971792913940990)
59 HOST 6(2) 2129289470 RELAY 6(2) 15360254 (65971792846832125)
60 RELAY 6(2) 15360254 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(65971792846832124)
61 RELAY 6(2) 15360254 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(65971792846832124)
62 RELAY 6(2) 15360254 HOST 6(2) 2129289470(65971792846832124)
63 HOST 6(2) 2128777470 RELAY 6(2) 15360254 (65971792845808125)
64 HOST 6(2) 2128265470 RELAY 6(2) 15360254 (65971792844784125)
65 SRFLX 6(2) 1693081854 RELAY 6(2) 15360254 (65971791974416893)
66 RELAY 6(2) 15360254 SRFLX 6(2) 1693081854(65971791974416892)
67 RELAY 6(2) 15360254 RELAY 6(2) 15360254 (65971788618973692)
68 HOST 4(1) 2129033471 RELAY 4(1) 15104255 (64872285513511423)
69 RELAY 4(1) 15104255 HOST 4(1) 2129033471(64872285513511422)
70 RELAY 4(1) 15104255 HOST 4(1) 2129033471(64872285513511422)
71 HOST 4(1) 2128521471 RELAY 4(1) 15104255 (64872285512487423)
72 SRFLX 4(1) 1692825855 RELAY 4(1) 15104255 (64872284641096191)
73 RELAY 4(1) 15104255 SRFLX 4(1) 1692825855(64872284641096190)
74 RELAY 4(1) 15104255 RELAY 4(1) 15104255 (64872281285652990)
75 HOST 4(2) 2129033470 RELAY 4(2) 15104254 (64872281218544125)
76 RELAY 4(2) 15104254 HOST 4(2) 2129033470(64872281218544124)
77 RELAY 4(2) 15104254 HOST 4(2) 2129033470(64872281218544124)
78 HOST 4(2) 2128521470 RELAY 4(2) 15104254 (64872281217520125)
79 SRFLX 4(2) 1692825854 RELAY 4(2) 15104254 (64872280346128893)
80 RELAY 4(2) 15104254 SRFLX 4(2) 1692825854(64872280346128892)
81 RELAY 4(2) 15104254 RELAY 4(2) 15104254 (64872276990685692)
Authors' Addresses
Tirumaleswar Reddy
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cessna Business Park, Varthur Hobli
Sarjapur Marathalli Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, Karnataka 560103
India
Email: tireddy@cisco.com
Reddy, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE February 2014
Prashanth Patil
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Bangalore
India
Email: praspati@cisco.com
Paal-Erik Martinsen
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Philip Pedersens Vei 22
Lysaker, Akershus 1325
Norway
Email: palmarti@cisco.com
Reddy, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 11]