[AVTCORE] RTP/TFRC + FEC ?

Olivier Crête <olivier.crete@collabora.co.uk> Sat, 07 May 2011 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <olivier.crete@collabora.co.uk>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2E5E06B1 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 May 2011 17:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aYcKH0PJb4WA for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 May 2011 17:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk (bhuna.collabora.co.uk [93.93.128.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC52E0676 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 May 2011 17:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: tester) with ESMTPSA id D4BCB6034EF
From: Olivier Crête <olivier.crete@collabora.co.uk>
To: avt@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-oTjmmdH/KvJOjhIw9U6X"
Organization: Collabora
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 20:51:50 -0400
Message-ID: <1304729510.32275.29.camel@TesterTop4>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 (2.32.2-1.fc14)
Subject: [AVTCORE] RTP/TFRC + FEC ?
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Sat, 07 May 2011 00:51:54 -0000

Hi,

I've implemented the RTP/TFRC draft and it seems to work pretty well.
That said, it also introduces some level of packet losses. Also, with
some wifi connections, we have a relatively high rate of non-congestion
packet loss. For both of these cases, I'd like to implement some kind of
FEC, since losing a single packet tends to give nasty artifacts with
video (especially using the free video codecs).

It seems the current tendency in recent RFCs related to FEC is to send
the FEC data as a separate stream from the main data. This seems to go
against the intent of RTP/TFRC since using a second stream may
effectively double the bandwidth share used by the video. Mixing both
the video packets and the FEC packets in the same stream seems like a
better idea to me for the unicast use-case. Is anyone implementing such
an approach? Is there any standard around that? Or am I missing
something?

-- 
Olivier Crête
olivier.crete@collabora.co.uk