RE: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01
"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Sun, 27 January 2008 16:59 UTC
Return-path: <avt-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJAqo-0001CL-JF; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:59:22 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJAqn-0001Ae-44 for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:59:21 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJAqm-0008Au-8X for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:59:21 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,256,1199692800"; d="scan'208";a="4280183"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2008 08:59:19 -0800
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0RGxJHo012987; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:59:19 -0800
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.195]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m0RGx7Al027455; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:59:07 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Gunnar Hellström' <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>, 'Colin Perkins' <csp@csperkins.org>, 'Randell Jesup' <rjesup@wgate.com>
References: <47679B43.3010503@db.org><DD8B8FEBBFAF9E488F63FF0F1A69EDD10441071E@ftrdmel1><E8308D99-774B-4B00-A5D8-72A9EFB97FDE@csperkins.org><DD8B8FEBBFAF9E488F63FF0F1A69EDD104471489@ftrdmel1><038901c85fef$d5e95400$0f75a7d9@GunnarH><ybuhch0zm8y.fsf@jesup.eng.wgate.com><03ae01c86031$627c33b0$0f75a7d9@GunnarH><BF4EB157-AD56-4565-977C-C9AB3BB754CF@csperkins.org><ybu7ihwze0c.fsf@jesup.eng.wgate.com><CC6465FD-349D-4E0F-80DA-070515237B30@csperkins.org><03b301c86071$a5081380$0f75a7d9@GunnarH> <05f701c86094$21bd9cc0$c3f0200a@cisco.com> <03ce01c860b8$a2d2c4b0$0f75a7d9@GunnarH>
Subject: RE: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:59:08 -0800
Message-ID: <063501c86105$f569edf0$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
In-Reply-To: <03ce01c860b8$a2d2c4b0$0f75a7d9@GunnarH>
Thread-Index: AchgSDE8yB42bYE+QS+sXIAqjb8HxwAKFV6AAAjPWxAACMQ38AATmQbw
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4739; t=1201453159; x=1202317159; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[AVT]=20RE=3A=20draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp- keepalive-01 |Sender:=20; bh=qrmUuqFMNVX+FfX7hAufNvxY0gHUnTKuFYZxF20mkso=; b=idhtWc/IhnnUL4ohjaPwbh1JyWtY1eo3wRYPPXT8EMYzWQ8J9mwTQQXvUk 6+NmVorC1kV2IfLA+60atufbU+abjNEw3igsjJPtbrYxX00iBLdZSR1hZQE8 3y1vChDJkG;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 932cba6e0228cc603da43d861a7e09d8
Cc: 'MARJOU Xavier RD-CORE-LAN' <xavier.marjou@orange-ftgroup.com>, 'AVT WG' <avt@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Gunnar Hellström [mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se] > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 11:46 PM > To: 'Dan Wing'; 'Colin Perkins'; 'Randell Jesup' > Cc: 'MARJOU Xavier RD-CORE-LAN'; 'AVT WG' > Subject: RE: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 > > So you mean that this quite strong recommendation about the > STUN method from > the keepalive draft is not right and the STUN method could be > wider used: > > " Recommendation: > o This method must only be used when negotiated between > ICE agents, > as specified in [5]." > > Should this recommendation be weakened in the draft? Yes, that is my opinion, when the application lacks its own keepalive mechanism. > So far we have sent the non-displayable text Unicode character BOM as > keepalive for RFC 4103. There are other payload-specific keepalives which work well, too -- for example, G.729 has its own silence packet. But, if there isn't one at all, a STUN packet seems to cause the least harm. RTP packets with different SSRCs cause problems (as described by others); RTP packets re-sent (with same sequence numbers and timestamps) look like duplicated packets (because they are) and thus can be interpreted as re-transmissions (for example, retransmissions caused by Ethernet collision detection). > It has the slight drawback that loss > of a series of > keep-alive transmissions can be falsely be detected as loss > of text and > disturb the received text. But it has the clear advantage of > being a real > valid RTP transmission that is carried well through all > network components > including B2BUAs, SBCs, IP-PBX etc on the same route as the > real payload. For purposes of NAT, such end-to-end carrying of packets is not needed, though. > Will all the other recommended solutions behave well through > such network components? Keeping alive the remote application (the remote RTP receiver), and, thus, keeping alive _all_ intermediate nodes (SBCs, etc.), is a different but related problem. If you want end-to-end keepalives, I agree that you do not want STUN. -d > Gunnar > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] > > > From: Gunnar Hellström [mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se] > > > > Colin, > > Yes, I realize that the RTCP method is good, if the other party > > supports RTCP multiplexing. And the STUN based method might > work when > > you have ICE. > > STUN packets fail the RTP validity check (Section A.2 of > RFC3550) so even if > the remote peer did not indicate support for ICE, sending the > peer a STUN > packet should not cause it any harm. > > -d > > > But all do not have RTCP multiplexing today. In order to maintain > > compatibility with all current implementations we need to > introduce a > > kind of negotiation between these methods. > > > > Try to negotiate RTCP multiplexing. If it fails, then use > an RFC 4103 > > specific method. > > A bit complex for a simple task, but maybe the way we should > > recommend. > > > > Gunnar > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Gunnar Hellström > > Omnitor > > gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se > > Tel: +46708204288 > > www.omnitor.se > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 7:19 PM > > To: Randell Jesup > > Cc: Gunnar Hellström; 'MARJOU Xavier RD-CORE-LAN'; 'AVT WG' > > Subject: Re: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 > > > > On 26 Jan 2008, at 17:35, Randell Jesup wrote: > > > Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> writes: > > ... > > >> It would be better to define a single keep-alive mechanism > > that works > > >> for all payload formats, and explicitly mark keep-alive > > mechanisms > > >> that only work for a subset of payload types as NOT RECOMMENDED. > > > > > > I think in this case, it may be better to not try to handle RFC > > > 4103 with a generic mechanism, especially when it's simple > > to define a > > > mechanism within the existing 4103 design. > > > > > > If a single generic mechanism will work, great, but I > think we may > > > complicate/hurt other users by trying to stretch it to cover 4103. > > > > I'd like to encourage either RTCP or STUN multiplexed on > the RTP port > > as the preferred keep-alive mechanisms. I don't think there are any > > RFC 4103-specific issues with that. > > > > -- > > Colin Perkins > > http://csperkins.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Alfred E. Heggestad
- [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 SOLLAUD Aurelien RD-TECH-LAN
- Re: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Colin Perkins
- RE: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 SOLLAUD Aurelien RD-TECH-LAN
- [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Randell Jesup
- RE: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Colin Perkins
- Re: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Randell Jesup
- Re: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Randell Jesup
- Re: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Colin Perkins
- RE: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Gunnar Hellström
- RE: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Dan Wing
- RE: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Gunnar Hellström
- RE: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Dan Wing
- RE: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Gunnar Hellström
- RE: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Dan Wing
- Re: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Randell Jesup
- RE: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 aurelien.sollaud
- RE: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-01 Randell Jesup