Re: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-04: Review Comments [csp]

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Fri, 03 December 2010 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E8D28C0DB for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 05:15:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.071
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.071 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xKEJPJBt01tK for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 05:15:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD5F028C0D9 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 05:15:30 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-3.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEACJ8+EyrRN+K/2dsb2JhbACjNHGnP5sohUgEhF6JJQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,293,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="250282434"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2010 13:16:47 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB3DGlYv029637; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:16:47 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 3 Dec 2010 05:16:47 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 05:15:44 -0800
Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DD50D13@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CF8B498.50600@ericsson.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-04: Review Comments [csp]
Thread-Index: AcuSykpVPqUon5LsQU6XPk97H84RIAAHwjkg
References: <4CF3BAB3.2000501@ericsson.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DC93041@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21E36365E@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <396D3FC7-9DA5-416E-9883-7FABD7234652@csperkins.org> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DC93B87@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <4CF7A62A.808@ericsson.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DC93C63@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <4CF7D54A.5000900@ericsson.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DC93D22@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <37011BA4-DDBF-465B-AE54-523E2F2A124F@csperkins.org> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DC93E52@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <4CF8B498.50600@ericsson.com>
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2010 13:16:47.0438 (UTC) FILETIME=[56AE1EE0:01CB92EC]
Cc: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, IETF AVT WG <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-04: Review Comments [csp]
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:15:31 -0000

...
> > Probably yes. Correct if I am wrong but this does not relate to the Token AFAICT. Here we are discussing the PT port which
> is used to acquire a Token from, whereas the concern Magnus has raised is related to sharing the feedback target port
> among multiple RTP sessions (which is the a=rtcp line in the multicast session).
> >
> > Maybe, this belongs to 5760?
> 
> I think it belongs in the port mapping draft. Because without it what we
> are discussing here is not really possible. The port mapping allows one
> to do late binding between a receiver local port and a specific feedback
> target address that relates to a specific SSM session. If there is some
> overloading ongoing for the FT Adress plus port then re-using the
> receivers local port creates an issue of separation. This would not
> likely happen if one had to pre-establish the unicast sessions. It
> becomes the receivers choice to re-use a specific local port, and that
> is really what the discussion here is about.

OK, not about the server side - which I wanted to convey.
 
> From my point of view a receiver really should use different local ports
> when submitting RTCP requests related to different SSM sessions. That
> way you avoid the whole mess, even if there is some overloading happening.

Yes, clearly a client cannot keep using the same local (receive) port for different unicast (retransmission, RAMS, etc.) sessions since the unless the source packets are distinct in their media source SSRCs, there could be leakage when switching from one session to another. OTOH, the client does not necessarily need a totally different port for every session, either.

I guess what implementations will do is that they will select N local ports when the system boots up and will rotate the port as they switch from one session to another. N should be chosen such that the probability of still receiving RTP/RTCP packets from an old session is almost zero when the client starts using the same port for a new session. N is application and usage dependent. For typical IPTV applications, a value of 10 or even 5 should be sufficient to satisfy the requirement above.

Is something along the lines above what you were looking for?

Cheers, acbegen.