MMUSIC                                                          T. Reddy
Internet-Draft                                                  P. Patil
Intended status: Standards Track                            P. Martinsen
Expires: January 1, 2015                                           Cisco
                                                           June 30, 2014

                    Happy Eyeballs Extension for ICE


   This document provides guidelines on how to make Interactive
   Connectivity Establishment (ICE) conclude faster in IPv4/IPv6 dual-
   stack scenarios where broken paths exist.  The provided guidelines
   are backwards compatible with the original ICE specification.

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

   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 January 1, 2015.

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
   ( 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 January 1, 2015                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           Happy Eyeballs for ICE                June 2014

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Improving ICE Dual-stack Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix A.  Example Algorithm for Choosing the Local Preference    6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

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 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, reflexive or relay) are sent such
   that an IP address family is completely depleted before checks from
   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 or excessive slow, this specification encourages intermingling
   the different address families when connectivity checks are
   performed.  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.

   The guidelines outlined in this specification are backward compatible
   with a standard ICE implementation.  This specification only alters
   the values used to create the resulting checklists in such a way that
   the core mechanisms from ICE [RFC5245] are still in effect.  The
   introduced fairness might be better, but not worse than what exists

Reddy, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           Happy Eyeballs for ICE                June 2014

2.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   This document uses terminology defined in [RFC5245].

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.  Compatibility

   ICE [RFC5245] section 4.1.2 states that the formula in section 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 has guidelines for how the type
   preference and local preference value should be chosen.  Instead of
   having a static local preference value for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses,
   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.

   It is also possible to dynamically change the type preference in such
   a way that IPv4 and IPv6 address candidates end up intermingled
   regardless of candidate type.  This is useful if there are a lot of

Reddy, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           Happy Eyeballs for ICE                June 2014

   IPv6 host candidates effectively blocking connectivity checks for
   IPv4 server reflexive candidates.

   The list below shows a sorted local candidate list where the priority
   is calculated in such a way that the IPv4 and IPv6 candidates are
   intermingled.  To allow for earlier connectivity checks for the IPv4
   server reflexive candidates, some of the IPv6 host candidates was
   demoted.  This is just an example of how a candidate priorities can
   be calculated to provide better fairness between IPv4 and IPv6
   candidates without breaking any of the ICE connectivity checks.

                     Candidate   Address Component
                       Type       Type      ID     Priority
                  (1)  HOST       IPv6      (1)    212928947
                  (2)  HOST       IPv6      (2)    2129289470
                  (3)  HOST       IPv4      (1)    2129033471
                  (4)  HOST       IPv4      (2)    2129033470
                  (5)  HOST       IPv6      (1)    2128777471
                  (6)  HOST       IPv6      (2)    2128777470
                  (7)  HOST       IPv4      (1)    2128521471
                  (8)  HOST       IPv4      (2)    2128521470
                  (9)  HOST       IPv6      (1)    2127753471
                  (10) HOST       IPv6      (2)    2127753470
                  (11) SRFLX      IPv6      (1)    1693081855
                  (12) SRFLX      IPv6      (2)    1693081854
                  (13) SRFLX      IPv4      (1)    1692825855
                  (14) SRFLX      IPv4      (2)    1692825854
                  (15) HOST       IPv6      (1)    1692057855
                  (16) HOST       IPv6      (2)    1692057854
                  (17) RELAY      IPv6      (1)    15360255
                  (18) RELAY      IPv6      (2)    15360254
                  (19) RELAY      IPv4      (1)    15104255
                  (20) RELAY      IPv4      (2)    15104254

                   SRFLX = server reflexive

   Note that the list does not alter the component ID part of the
   formula.  This keeps the different components (RTP and RTCP) close in
   the list.  What matters is the ordering of the candidates with
   component ID 1.  Once the checklist is formed for a media stream the
   candidate pair with component ID 1 will be tested first.  If ICE
   connectivity check is successful then other candidate pairs with the
   same foundation will be unfrozen ([RFC5245] section 5.7.4.  Computing

Reddy, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           Happy Eyeballs for ICE                June 2014

   The local and remote agent can have different algorithms for choosing
   the local preference and type preference values without impacting the
   synchronization between the local and remote check lists.

   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

        pair priority = 2^32*MIN(G,D) + 2*MAX(G,D) + (G>D?1:0)

   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.  The resulting local and remote checklist will still
   be synchronized.  The introduced fairness might be better, but not
   worse than what exists today

5.  IANA Considerations


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

7.  Acknowledgements

   Authors would like to thank Dan Wing, Ari Keranen, Bernard Aboba,
   Martin Thomson, Jonathan Lennox and Balint Menyhart for their
   comments and review.

Reddy, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           Happy Eyeballs for ICE                June 2014

8.  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

   [RFC6724]  Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
              "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
              (IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012.

Appendix A.  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 different 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 = S - N*2*(Cn/Cmax)

   S: Address Type specific start value (IPv4 or IPv6 Start)

   N: Absolute value of IPv6_start-IPv4_start.  This ensures a positive
      number even if IPv4 is the highest priority.

Reddy, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           Happy Eyeballs for ICE                June 2014

   Cn:  Number of current candidates of a specific IP address type and
      candidate type (host, server reflexive or relay).

   Cmax:  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, server reflexive, relay).  The local
   preference value is calculated separately for each candidate type.

Authors' Addresses

   Tirumaleswar Reddy
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Cessna Business Park, Varthur Hobli
   Sarjapur Marathalli Outer Ring Road
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560103


Reddy, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           Happy Eyeballs for ICE                June 2014

   Prashanth Patil
   Cisco Systems, Inc.


   Paal-Erik Martinsen
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Philip Pedersens Vei 22
   Lysaker, Akershus  1325


Reddy, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 8]