> -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Sip] Re: [BEHAVE] Re: ICE deployment data before LC for RFC > > ICE was built for reliability - to cover lots of cases and achieve not > just 90% effectiveness (not nearly good enough), but as effective as is > possible within the limitations of hurting the Internet or violating > security policies and other things we won't touch.
Just to clarify, the 90% number (which I'm guessing comes from my published stats) is the success rate of any two peers being able to establish a direct connection without a relay service. If I were to add a relay service (which I don't need for my application, but would be trivial) for the remaining 10% I hope you agree that near 100% of peers would be able to talk. (I say "near" because nothing works at 100% in the real world, no matter how simple it appears on paper.) > a. extensive technical review, comments and feedbacks, including > commentary from implementors (including one in my own company, and > several others from outside of it) and deployers (Tim Moore from > Microsoft) Excellent! Do you or any of your implementor colleagues have any data showing how well the result works? Or if not, do you have an active system that you can instrument to get it? Or a test implementation that can be instrumented in the lab? Or any data at all showing how well ICE works? I understand we have data about the general NAT penetration techniques, years of experience, and active security teams. Does anybody have actual users, using this on a daily basis on a broad scale, proving that the product of all this hard work accomplishes its goals? -david _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
