Re: [AVTCORE] RTP/TFRC + FEC ?

Olivier Crête <olivier.crete@collabora.co.uk> Mon, 09 May 2011 16:47 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 A802DE06C3 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:47:08 -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 Yx5edVTA7QlI for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk (bhuna.collabora.co.uk [93.93.128.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87E74E062A for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: tester) with ESMTPSA id 15037603471
From: Olivier Crête <olivier.crete@collabora.co.uk>
To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
References: <1304729510.32275.29.camel@TesterTop4> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540EF516F0@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-99xxRROCLJkdFS4/UZGZ"
Organization: Collabora
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:47:03 -0400
Message-ID: <1304959623.32275.30.camel@TesterTop4>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 (2.32.2-1.fc14)
Cc: avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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: Mon, 09 May 2011 16:47:08 -0000

On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 10:34 -0400, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-05-07 at 11:47 -0700, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
> > > 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
> > 
> > That has a lot good features. Please see the drafts in fecframe wg.
> > The fec framework draft will also tell you that both the source and
> > fec packets can be sent in their own RTP streams (with different
> > SSRCs) but within the same UDP flow, if that is what you are worried
> > about.
> 
> I saw vague allusions to using different SSRCs, but I couldn't find
> anything to signal that using SIP/SDP ?

Arg, I found a:ssrc-group.. seems like I'm not very good at reading.

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