Open Bug 1034964 Opened 10 years ago Updated 8 months ago
Use ICE regular nomination when peer is ICE-Lite
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_9_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.153 Safari/537.36 Steps to reproduce: Firefox generates a SDP offer and receives a SDP answer indicating "a=ice-lite". Actual results: Firefox starts ICE procedures by using aggressive nomination. This is incorrect and can cause ICE to fail since a ICE-Lite server must just receive a single Binding request with USE-CANDIDATE (this is: ICE regular nomination). Expected results: Firefox should use ICE regular nomination as RFC 5245 section 8.1.1 states: "If its peer has a lite implementation, an agent MUST use a regular nomination algorithm." http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#section-8.1.1 There is a thread about this topic in rtcweb ML: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg12583.html
I believe this may be causing a problem with projectsquared.com which responds with 'ice-lite'. To reproduce you can use Firefox 35 on Windows and be logged into a VPN. We are seeing many connection failures is this case and I think specifying USE_CANDIDATE might fix this.
We've discussed this briefly; the current plan is to stop doing aggressive nomination entirely. We need two things: 1. the ability to send on any valid pair prior to nomination 2. stop using USE-CANDIDATE aggressively The first is tricky, because it affects the state machines we have (we potentially need an additional "connected, but not done" state) and that might be disruptive. It's not clear why aggressive nomination is causing the ICE-lite server specific issues. I'm guessing that this depends on how the ICE-lite implementation handles USE-CANDIDATE, since Ethan notes that Squared is OK with our shotgun-style nomination.
Martin -- Is there a bug that covers what you outline in comment 2? If so, can we dup this to that -- or (if not) use this bug to cover the work?
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
backlog: --- → webRTC+
Ever confirmed: true
Priority: -- → P2
Rather than dup it out, I think that we should just link a few of these. I think that there might be another bug regarding the new nombis work, but I couldn't find that.
See Also: → 1138559
Any update on this? Nightly 46.0a1 does not yet support negotiating ICE with a ICE-Lite server.
There is also bug 1213442. I guess Martin was referring to passive-agressive nomination in comment #2. Which the Google folks started to implement with interesting side effects. But I don't think we have a separate ticket for that. Probably we should as this here refers to ice-lite interop. AFAIK the Cisco folks basically have implemented a workaround on their ice-lite end, by not responding to aggressive nomination requests until they have done X round trip checks on the pair which makes their ICE lite regular nomination happy.
See Also: → 1213442
Facing similar issue with my ICE-Lite webrtc gateway. 1. call initiated from a webrtc client towards gateway - Even after processing answer successfully, no stun connectivity checks have been initiated from the client which should be in ICE-Controlling state. Is there a way to debug what Ice state the client is as well as which nomination policy it has selected?
(In reply to hotshot47 from comment #7) > Is there a way to debug what Ice state the client is as well as which > nomination policy it has selected? As this bug points out Firefox supports right now only aggressive nomination. So there is nothing to pick. One way to find out about the ICE is look at the logging: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Media/WebRTC/Logging
> It's not clear why aggressive nomination is causing the ICE-lite server specific issues. I'm guessing that this depends on how the ICE-lite implementation handles USE-CANDIDATE, since Ethan notes that Squared is OK with our shotgun-style nomination.
The ICE-Lite server receives a STUN with USE-CANDIDATE over its IPv4 UDP port, so that becomes the selected path and DTLS ClientHello is sent by the server over that transport.
A few ms later another STUN with USE-CANDIDATE arrives over the server's IPv6 UDP port.
- Should the server changes the sending address to the IPv6 one?
Even more: Firefox, for any reason, prefers the IPv6 path and starts sending SRTP over it. Should the server still sends its SRTP over the IPv4 path? or what?
This is 100% unclear because the spec becomes broken when a ICE aggressive endpoint talks to a ICE Lite server.
Any news about proper ICE support in Firefox?
I think the plan right now is rather to implement passive aggressive nomination in bug 1238249, then implementing full nomination support. But supporting passive aggressive would result in Firefox no longer sending binding request with USE-CANDIDATE attributes by default. Currently none of these is actively worked on. Patches are always welcome.
Mass change P2->P3 to align with new Mozilla triage process.
Priority: P2 → P3
This bug causes significant issues with the ICE-lite implementation in the MCU used by Blackboard. We don't have problems with IPv6, as that is not currently supported by our infrastructure, but if the FF endpoint has multiple IPv4 addresses (e.g. ethernet + wireless, or an active VPN connection) then connection attempts are highly unreliable. The MCU will use the first candidate that sends USE-CANDIDATE (after the SDP answer is received), while Firefox will end up using the highest-priority candidate that is successful; often these are not the same, resulting in a failed connection.
Hi, so this issue (that affects real scenarios and deployments) has been moved from P2 to P3? Any plan to fix it instead of waiting for bug 1238249 (which has also been moved from P2 to P3 and has zero activity? This is important, guys.
P3 is basically the equivalent of the backlog. Implementing ICE bis per RFC 8445 in in the backlog right now. To support that we will have to implement proper full nomination, which would solve this ticket. But right now it is not clear when this will be actively worked on.
Nils: What are missing pieces. How can we help? If I understand it correctly the plan is still to move and replace Aggressive nomination with Regular nomination. Correct? Is NICEr ready for normal/regular nomination? I can see that there are test case for it: https://github.com/resiprocate/nICEr/blob/b14598f34d12373069693a1f0535fe354a3f1fd5/src/test/test-remote-ekr.conf#L6 And in this place is where the Aggressive nomination is set in the code: mozilla-central/media/mtransport/nricectx.cpp line 595: UINT4 flags = NR_ICE_CTX_FLAGS_AGGRESSIVE_NOMINATION; Can you point out the missing parts, that we should write to fix it?
So that test case is not being run by anyone (that I know of) right now. Also, the version on reSIProcate is kinda dead from a development perspective; the copy in hg.mozilla.org is the most recent one. We expect that nICEr's regular nomination will need some work to be considered "ready".
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.