Re: [AVTCORE] RTP circuit breakers practical experience feedback

Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> Tue, 11 August 2015 11:52 UTC

Return-Path: <sperreault@jive.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEBC1A8870 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 04:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RtZetynanJCs for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 04:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 420451A886D for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 04:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obnw1 with SMTP id w1so145767384obn.3 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+Tm50849z/QNEX9Q5j+J+ZtTcVEIxxJvycRPdr37eEc=; b=QA9h/l1FmnbVHOjCsPdZCl0GDZlSsYz19REqDC1zbaQqCbVLMVH/AFtDjxPSnsZihJ Wd/qZHkAVST1yG+JV+DK1wqbc9ggKstfLrpvH6IcST+lJ4bzORa5BdZ/0Xse2wJWjLGi qONXMnC3nRzvihlGIkFFUG6nh2e9G+OThD1S0W6Ykp5UegkemBg9Q/M/fn58mjE9YtCj 4r8hso/HHXS7a3HLceSxZPS0lLwgZhtrcTE496vy45m+61wAntucMA/acriyQP5Zq/Sr 4m8QOQJeGiuBqtlEVv83m3VXBfDJPQXZvnQxXdonKYb8rUaqXUKyk5XbTfS5drsfQYqi BGqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmI4c7u0MQFLr8gnpP6OHTd3viDlJ4Qpq327Zit/F3BGcLsYbOirVQOPYcjlI/4j1FhUz6k
X-Received: by 10.182.128.234 with SMTP id nr10mr24067646obb.81.1439293963763; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Simons-MacBook-Air.local (modemcable020.8-21-96.mc.videotron.ca. [96.21.8.20]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id sv3sm1431985obc.10.2015.08.11.04.52.42 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Aug 2015 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55C9E208.50205@jive.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:52:40 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
References: <55C4C0B0.1080100@jive.com> <2838C1DA-1418-4B1B-BA6A-8CB542B2DD64@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <2838C1DA-1418-4B1B-BA6A-8CB542B2DD64@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/QVzJJw7tQSSWPwfaTLJnvxic__E>
Cc: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] RTP circuit breakers practical experience feedback
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:52:47 -0000

Le 2015-08-10 17:32, Colin Perkins a écrit :
> These are clearly bugs in the devices you're communicating with. I
> agree that if such devices are common in some environments, then an
> RTP circuit breaker that checks connectivity using RTCP will be
> difficult to deploy in those environments. I'm not sure there's much
> we can do about this, other than report the bugs and hope the broken
> devices eventually get fixed. I will make sure the circuit breaker
> draft notes the issue.

Agreed. In our situation we have to deal with lots of different
implementations. I suppose in a pure WebRTC world things could be different.

>> - The "congestion" circuit breaker has never triggered. I don't
>> really know how to interpret this: am I supposed to rejoice or is
>> the circuit breaker simply useless in practice?
> 
> It perhaps addresses the concern that the circuit breaker is overly
> sensitive...

Perhaps, although our data is exclusively from the server side, where we
have excellent connectivity. We have no circuit breaker implementation
running client-side on the wild public Internet. I guess the results
there could be different, especially for peer-to-peer, wild public
Internet to wild public Internet connections.

Simon