[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Draft is active
In: MissingRef
ICE                                                         P. Martinsen
Internet-Draft                                                  T. Reddy
Intended status: Informational                                  P. Patil
Expires: April 21, 2016                                            Cisco
                                                        October 19, 2015


            ICE Multihomed and IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack Fairness
                  draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-00

Abstract

   This document provides guidelines on how to make Interactive
   Connectivity Establishment (ICE) conclude faster in multihomed and
   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 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 April 21, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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




Martinsen, et al.        Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    ICE Multihomed and DualStack Fairness     October 2015


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Improving ICE Multihomed Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Improving ICE Dual Stack Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  ICE-Dual Starck Fairness Test code  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.2.  ICE-Dual Starck Fairness Test code  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Applications should take special care to deprioritize network
   interfaces known to provide unreliable connectivity when operating in
   a multihomed environment.  For example certain tunnel services might
   provide unreliable connectivity.  Doing so will ensure a more fair
   distribution of the connectivity checks across available network
   interfaces on the device.  The simple guidelines presented here
   describes how to deprioritize interfaces known by the application to
   provide unreliable connectivity.

   There is a also a need to introduce more fairness when handling
   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, 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



Martinsen, et al.        Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    ICE Multihomed and DualStack Fairness     October 2015


   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.

   This document describes how to fairly order the candidates in
   multihomed and dual-stack environments, thus affecting the sending
   order of the connectivity checks.  If aggressive nomination is in
   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
   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
   today.

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].

3.  Improving ICE Multihomed Fairness

   A multihomed ICE agent can potentially send and receive connectivity
   checks on all available interfaces and IP addresses.  It is possible
   for an interface to have several IP addresses associated with it.  To
   avoid unnecessary delay when performing connectivity checks it would
   be beneficial to prioritize interfaces and IP addresses known by the
   agent to provide stable connectivity.  If the agent have access to
   information about the physical network it is connected to (Like SSID
   in a WiFi Network) this can be used as information regarding how that
   network interface should be prioritized at this point in time.

   The application knowledge regarding the reliability of an interface
   can also be based on simple metrics like previous connection success/
   failure rates or a more static model based on interface types like
   wired, wireless, cellular, virtual, tunneled and so on.

   Candidates from a interface known to the application to provide
   unreliable connectivity SHOULD get a low candidate priority.  This
   ensures they appear near the end of the candidate list, and would be



Martinsen, et al.        Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    ICE Multihomed and DualStack Fairness     October 2015


   the last to be tested during the connectivity check phase.  This
   allows candidate pairs more likely to succeed to be tested first.

   If the application is unable to get any interface information
   regarding type or unable to store any relevant metrics, it SHOULD
   treat all interfaces as if they have reliable connectivity.  This
   ensures all interfaces gets their fair chance to perform their
   connectivity checks.

4.  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.  However, 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.

   Implementations SHOULD prioritize IPv6 candidates by putting some of
   them first in the the intermingled checklist.  This increases the
   chance of a IPv6 connectivity checks to complete first and be ready
   for nomination or usage.  This enables implementations to follow the
   intent of [RFC6555] "Happy Eyeballs: Success with Dual-Stack Hosts".
   It is worth noting that the timing recommendations in [RFC6555] are
   to excessive for ICE usage.

5.  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)





Martinsen, et al.        Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    ICE Multihomed and DualStack Fairness     October 2015


   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 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 assign lower
   priorities to IP addresses derived from unreliable interfaces using
   the local preference value.

   It is worth mentioning that [RFC5245] section 4.1.2 say that; "if
   there are multiple candidates for a particular component for a
   particular media stream that have the same type, the local preference
   MUST be unique for each one".

   The local type preference can be dynamically changed 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 IPv6 host
   candidates effectively blocking connectivity checks for IPv4 server
   reflexive candidates.

   Candidates with IP addresses from a unreliable interface SHOULD be
   ordered at the end of the checklist.  Not intermingled as the dual-
   stack 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 (No multihomed candidates).  To allow for earlier
   connectivity checks for the IPv4 server reflexive candidates, some of
   the IPv6 host candidates are 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.



















Martinsen, et al.        Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    ICE Multihomed and DualStack Fairness     October 2015


                     Candidate   Address Component
                       Type       Type      ID     Priority
                  -------------------------------------------
                  (1)  HOST       IPv6      (1)    2129289471
                  (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
   States).

   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
   formula:

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





Martinsen, et al.        Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    ICE Multihomed and DualStack Fairness     October 2015


   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

   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
   [ICE_dualstack_imp].

6.  IANA Considerations

   None.

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



Martinsen, et al.        Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    ICE Multihomed and DualStack Fairness     October 2015


   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
   the signaling channel provides message integrity and data origin




Martinsen, et al.        Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    ICE Multihomed and DualStack Fairness     October 2015


   authentication as described in section 2.5 of [RFC5245] apply to this
   use.

9.  Acknowledgements

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

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              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
              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
              (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
              Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, DOI
              10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245>.

   [RFC6555]  Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
              Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, DOI 10.17487/RFC6555, April
              2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6555>.

   [RFC6724]  Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
              "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
              (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.

   [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







Martinsen, et al.        Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    ICE Multihomed and DualStack Fairness     October 2015


   [ICE_dualstack_imp]
              Martinsen, P., "ICE DualStack Test Implementation github
              repo", <https://github.com/palerikm/ICE-
              DualStackFairness>.

Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: palmarti@cisco.com


   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.
   Bangalore
   India

   Email: praspati@cisco.com



















Martinsen, et al.        Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/