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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 draft-martinsen-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness

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]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/