Subject: [MMUSIC] Re: ICE micro-lite for support of IPv6 transition

From: "Eric Tremblay" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:57:23 -0400

Jonathan, John,

I have read the (detailled) transcripts from MMUSIC where no concensus
was achieved on this and the Friday sipping meeting notes where this was
finally approved. 

I think John wants to have a light mechanism that dual IP stack hosts
can easily implement, and I have to fully agree with him.

Simply put, my feeling is that ICE is too heavy weight on many accounts
when someone just wants to run SIP on a dual IP stack:
- Increased licensing costs: Need to buy an ICE component (more money
for the company I work for!)
- Increased development costs: Need to properly integrate ICE, complex
interations with RTP stack, much more complex to test.
- Increased hardware costs: Added functionality requires additional rom
and ram

ICE-lite, which is a lot less complex, is still too complex when all
that is required is dual stack support. But, it is useless to talk about
ICE-lite if it does not support the addition of multiple host candidates
for a single component. An implementation of ICE-lite would not solve
this problem and we have to resort to an ICE-full implementation.
Something that in my opinion is too much to ask.

Thus, my feeling as a protocol stack developer is that our customers
will not buy ICE if they plan to develop simple dual IP stack devices.
They will thus most probably rely on ANAT. We need to somehow define an
evolutionary path towards ICE, and I wonder which path is the easiest
for overall interop: ICE interop with ANAT or ICE interop with ICE
micro-lite

Collectively our 5 cents,

Eric Tremblay & Guylain Lavoie

-----------------------------------------------------
Eric Tremblay, Guylain Lavoie
Technical Product Managers
www.M5T.com

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:23:20 +0300

> can easily implement, and I have to fully agree with him.

In a closed deployment, you may use ANAT if you like - the protocol police 
won't put you to jail.

In any other case, you need at least ICE-Lite: even if you can warrant that 
your agent has no firewall, no NAT, etc, and does not need ICE... the other 
side might well need it because it might have a firewall and/or a NAT on its 
side. The whole point is that you cannot assume some third party will not 
need you to have at least ICE-Lite because of hir/her network contraints, 
regardless of yours.

As an aside, back to closed deployments, it is fairly likely that you won't 
need dual-stack either.

> Something that in my opinion is too much to ask.

There should not be any issues with allowing ICE-Lite to advertise one address 
per network protocol rather than only one address. The ICE peer will have to 
peer matching network protocol anyway, if it's dual-stack.

> for overall interop: ICE interop with ANAT or ICE interop with ICE

You cannot make ICE interop with ANAT as far as some of ICE's features may be 
required for the connection to work.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont