MMUSIC T. Reddy
Internet-Draft P. Patil
Intended status: Standards Track D. Wing
Expires: February 26, 2014 Cisco
August 25, 2013
Happy Eyeballs Extension for ICE
draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs-02
Abstract
This document specifies requirements for algorithms that make ICE
connectivity checks more responsive by reducing delays in dual-stack
host ICE connectivity checks when there is a path failure for the
address family preferred by the application or by the operating
system. As IPv6 is usually preferred, the procedures in this
document helps avoid user-noticeable delays when the IPv6 path is
broken or excessively slow.
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 February 26, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
Reddy, et al. Expires February 26, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE August 2013
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Candidates Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Algorithm overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Processing the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
In situations where there are many IPv6 addresses, ICE [RFC5245] will
prefer IPv6 candidates [RFC6724] and will attempt connectivity checks
on all the IPv6 candidates before trying an IPv4 candidate. If the
IPv6 path is broken, this fallback to IPv4 can consume a lot of time,
harming user satisfaction of dual-stack devices.
This document describes an algorithm that makes ICE connectivity
checks more responsive to failures of an address family by reordering
the candidates such that IPv6 and IPv4 candidates get a fair chance
during connectivity checks. This document specifies requirements for
any such algorithm, with the goals that the ICE agent need not be
inordinately harmed with a simple reordering of the candidates.
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 note uses terminology defined in [RFC5245].
3. Candidates Priority
A prioritization formula is used by ICE [RFC5245] so that most
preferred address pairs are tested first, and if a sufficiently good
pair is discovered, the tests can be stopped. With IPv6, addresses
obtained from local network interfaces, called host candidates, are
Reddy, et al. Expires February 26, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE August 2013
recommended as high-priority ones to be tested first since if they
work, they provide usually the best path between the two hosts. The
ICE specification recommends to use the rules defined in [RFC6724] as
part of the prioritization formula for IPv6 host candidates and
[I-D.keranen-mmusic-ice-address-selection] updates the ICE rules on
how IPv6 host candidates are selected.
For dual-stack hosts the preference for IPv6 host candidates is
higher than IPv4 host candidates based on precedence value of IP
addresses described in [RFC6724]. IPv6 server reflexive candidates
have higher precedence than IPv4 server reflexive candidate since
NPTv6 is stateless and transport-agnostic.
(highest) IPv6 Host Candidate
IPv4 Host Candidate
IPv6 Server Reflexive Candidate
IPv4 Server Reflexive Candidate
IPv6 Relayed Transport Candidate
(lowest) IPv4 Relayed Transport Candidate
Figure 1: Candidate Preferences in decreasing order
By using the technique described in Section 4, if there are both IPv6
and IPv4 addresses candidates gathered, and the first 'N' candidates
are of the same IP address family, then the highest-priority
candidate of the other address family is promoted to position N in
the check list thus making ICE connectivity checks more responsive to
failures of an address family.
Note: The algorithm works even if the administrator changes the
policy table to prefer IPv4 addresses over IPv6 addresses as defined
in [RFC6724].
4. Algorithm overview
The Happy Eyeballs Extension for ICE algorithm proposes the following
steps after candidates are prioritized using the formula in section
4.1.2.1 of [RFC5245]:
a. If the first 'N' candidates are of the same IP address family,
then the highest-priority candidate of the other address family
is promoted to position 'N+1' in the list.
b. Step a is repeated for subsequent candidates in the list until
all candidates of the preferred address family are exhausted.
Reddy, et al. Expires February 26, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE August 2013
The result of these steps is that after every consecutive 'N'
candidates of the preferred family, a candidate of the other family
is inserted.
The following figure illustrates the result of the algorithm on
candidates:
Before Happy Eyeballs Extension for ICE algorithm :
----------------------------------------------------
(highest) IPv6 Host Candidate-1
IPv6 Host Candidate-2
IPv6 Host Candidate-3
IPv6 Host Candidate-4
IPv6 Host Candidate-5
IPv6 Host Candidate-6
IPv6 Host Candidate-7
IPv4 Host Candidate
IPv6 Server Reflexive Candidate
IPv4 Server Reflexive Candidate
IPv6 Relayed Transport Candidate
(lowest) IPv4 Relayed Transport Candidate
After Happy Eyeballs Extension for ICE algorithm :
--------------------------------------------------
(highest) IPv6 Host Candidate-1
IPv6 Host Candidate-2
IPv6 Host Candidate-3
IPv4 Host Candidate ---> Promoted candidate
IPv6 Host Candidate-4
IPv6 Host Candidate-5
IPv6 Host Candidate-6
IPv4 Server Reflexive Candidate ---> Promoted candidate
IPv6 Host Candidate-7
IPv6 Server Reflexive Candidate
IPv6 Relayed Transport Candidate
(lowest) IPv4 Relayed Transport Candidate
4.1. Processing the Results
If ICE connectivity checks using IPv4 candidate is successful then
ICE Agent performs as usual "Discovering Peer Reflexive Candidates"
(Section 7.1.3.2.1 of [RFC5245]), "Constructing a Valid Pair"
(Section 7.1.3.2.2 of [RFC5245]), "Updating Pair States"
(Section 7.1.3.2.3 of [RFC5245]), "Updating the Nominated Flag"
(Section 7.1.3.2.4 of [RFC5245]).
Reddy, et al. Expires February 26, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE August 2013
If ICE connectivity checks using an IPv4 candidate is successful for
each component of the media stream and connectivity checks using IPv6
candidates is not yet successful, the ICE endpoint will declare
victory, conclude ICE for the media stream and start sending media
using IPv4. However, it is also possible that ICE endpoint continues
to perform ICE connectivity checks with IPv6 candidate pairs and if
checks using higher-priority IPv6 candidate pair is successful then
media stream can be moved to the IPv6 candidate pair. Continuing to
perform connectivity checks can be useful for subsequent connections,
to optimize which connectivity checks are tried first. Such
optimization is out of scope of this document.
The following diagram shows the behaviour during the connectivity
check when Alice calls Bob and Agent Alice is the controlling agent
and uses the aggressive nomination algorithm. "USE-CAND" implies the
presence of the USE-CANDIDATE attribute.
Alice Bob
| |
| |
| Bind Req USE-CAND Bind Req |
| using IPv6 using IPv6 |
|------------------>X X<-----------------------|
| Bind Req USE-CAND Bind Req |
| using IPv6 after Ta using IPv6 |
|------------------>X X<-----------------------|
| |
[after connectivity checks for 2 IPv6 addresses, try IPv4] |
| |
| Bind Req USE-CAND |
| using IPv4 |
|------------------------------------------------------------>|
| Bind Resp |
| using IPv4 |
|<----------------------------------------------------------- |
| RTP |
|============================================================>|
| Bind Req |
| using IPv4 |
|<------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bind Response |
| using IPv4 |
|------------------------------------------------------------>|
| RTP |
|<===========================================================>|
Figure 2: Happy Eyeballs Extension for ICE
Reddy, et al. Expires February 26, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE August 2013
5. IANA Considerations
None.
6. 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.
7. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Bernard Aboba, Martin Thomson, Jonathan
Lennox, Pal Martinsen for their comments and review.
8. References
8.1. 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.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April
2010.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
October 2008.
[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010.
[RFC6336] Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "IANA Registry for
Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options", RFC
6336, July 2011.
Reddy, et al. Expires February 26, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Happy Eyeballs for ICE August 2013
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.keranen-mmusic-ice-address-selection]
Keraenen, A. and J. Arkko, "Update on Candidate Address
Selection for Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE)", draft-keranen-mmusic-ice-address-selection-01
(work in progress), July 2012.
[RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC
2663, August 1999.
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
Prashanth Patil
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cessna Business Park, Varthur Hobli
Sarjapur Marthalli Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, Karnataka 560103
India
Email: praspati@cisco.com
Dan Wing
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: dwing@cisco.com
Reddy, et al. Expires February 26, 2014 [Page 7]