Re: [AVTCORE] SSRC multiplexing of RTP

Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> Mon, 14 March 2011 23:13 UTC

Return-Path: <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
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 AE0933A6BAE for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.728
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.728 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.429, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 muHB4fPf1iIC for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vsp-outgoing1.binero.net (vsp-outgoing1.binero.net [193.17.218.160]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 796873A697A for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.binero.se (unknown [195.74.39.229]) by vsp-outgoing1.binero.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTP for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:14:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.50.31] (h225n1fls32o933.telia.com [213.67.165.225]) by smtp-08-01.atm.binero.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EE4243A276 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:14:17 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D7EA149.50005@omnitor.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:14:17 +0100
From: Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: avt@ietf.org
References: <11120238-4159-4BA7-B150-0B28E86651B3@cisco.com><4D7798A9.7080006@omnitor.se> <4D779F79.8090001@ericsson.com><4D79FEC3.9060204@alvestrand.no> <4D7E3F9C.4010505@ericsson.com> <19838.19728.906691.771074@amman.clic.cs.columbia.edu> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540E8ABC69@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540E8ABC69@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] SSRC multiplexing of RTP
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <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: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:13:06 -0000

The rtp-cnames document seems to give good advice.

Statements that make me want to stay away from SSRC multiplexing is for 
example what is stated in RFC 3550 RTP
in 6.2.1
  "New sites are added to the count when they are heard, and an entry 
for each SHOULD be created in a table indexed by the SSRC or CSRC 
identifier (see Section 8.2) to keep track of them. New entries MAY be 
considered not valid until multiple packets carrying the new SSRC have 
been received "

If a source is regarded not valid, I see a risk that RTP implementations 
ignore packets from that source.

/Gunnar

Ali C. Begen (abegen) skrev 2011-03-14 18:30:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of lennox@cs.columbia.edu
>> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:15 PM
>> To: Magnus Westerlund
>> Cc: Harald Alvestrand; avt@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] SSRC multiplexing of RTP
>>
>> On Monday, March 14 2011, "Magnus Westerlund" wrote to "Harald Alvestrand, avt@ietf.org" saying:
>>
>>>> - if it is a new stream, how to tell that it's a new stream
>>>> - if it is an old stream, renumbered, how to tell what the old stream was
>>> I don't think the specs are that unclear on what is what. You do need
>>> the CNAME to determine which case it is. Sure it can be clarified. I
>>> mostly think the issue is with the state of the implementations. They
>>> haven't considered the implications and need for multiple SSRC support.
>> There are valid cases where multiple independent streams will have the same
>> CNAME -- if they're multiple sources from the same participant.  Multiple
>> video streams in the Telepresence/CLUE environment are probably the current
>> most prominent example of this, but generally, this will be the case if you
>> have multiple streams that all need to be synchronized together.
> CNAME would be used to relate a source stream with its FEC stream as well. The cname guidelines document is a useful read:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-05
>
> -acbegen
>
>> --
>> Jonathan Lennox
>> lennox@cs.columbia.edu
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>> avt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt