Re: [AVTCORE] Running multiple quic sessions over the same address/port pair

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

In P2P there is the potential need to multiplex/demultiplex:
1. RTP/RTCP over QUIC datagrams,
2. Data over QUIC datagrams, (unreliable/unordered)
3. Data over a QUIC reliable stream (reliable/ordered),
4. Message per stream (reliable/unordered)

Cases 3/4 could be either data or media (e.g. case 3 could be GoP per
stream, 4 could be encoded frame per stream).

On Sun, Feb 27, 2022, 7:54 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I should add one more point.
>
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 11:37 PM Roman Shpount <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:18 AM Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2022, at 20:50, Roman Shpount <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> [BA] This should be possible. The means will differ depending on whether
>>> we are talking about P2P QUIC (where you could use Connection-Id) or
>>> something higher up the stack. Multiplexing as defined in rfc7983bis wasn’t
>>> implemented in the P2P (g)QUIC Origin trial since the QUIC implementation
>>> was pre-standard and lacked the capability. So only one connection was
>>> allowed. At the time the focus was on P2P data not media, but in the
>>> absence of priority support, it seemed desirable to allow distinct data and
>>> media connections that might be constructed to use different cc algorithms.
>>>
>>>
>> This is very interesting and can be one more reason to use QUICK instead
>> of DTLS. The problem would be to map a pair of tls-id to a Connection-Id.
>>
>
> (After agreeing with Bernard's points)
>
> Within the "Media Over QUIC" conspiracy, we have some folks that are
> assuming they would use datagrams ("because datagrams"), and other folks
> assuming they would use streams ("because multiplexing"). One of the things
> that I'm finding in conversations on that side of the fence is that the
> choice isn't obvious (even though it's obvious to everyone, it's not the
> same obvious answer).
>
> The QUIC working group started out thinking that they obviously needed
> some way to multiplex datagrams, but then discovered that there were a lot
> of (potentially conflicting) reasons to want to multiplex datagrams, so
> they punted that to the application, in
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-quic-datagram-10.html#name-multiplexing-datagrams
> .
>
> I wrote about this in more detail, in
> https://spencerdawkins.github.io/sdp-rtp-quic-questions/draft-dawkins-sdp-rtp-quic-questions.html#name-quic-datagram-multiplexing
> .
>
> (I *really *need to update my sdp-rtp-quic*-questions* draft - I wasn't
> expecting that, but I'm happy to do it)
>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
>
>
>> _____________
>> Roman Shpount
>>
>>
>