[AVT] Potential overhead issues for RTP over DCCP

Damon Lanphear <damonlan@real.com> Wed, 19 June 2002 16:26 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25559 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:26:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA09796 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:26:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA09761; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:25:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA09730 for <avt@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:25:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from wullbinkle.real.com (wullbinkle.real.com [207.188.22.31]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25525 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:25:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from real.com (murrow2k1.real.com [207.188.7.41]) by wullbinkle.real.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5JGOXKR005020 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:24:33 -0700
Received: from turnip ([172.23.103.232]) by real.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id g5JGOXMB026849 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:24:33 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20020619092449.00dbbbd8@mail.real.com>
X-Sender: damonlan@mail.real.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:24:49 -0700
To: avt@ietf.org
From: Damon Lanphear <damonlan@real.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: [AVT] Potential overhead issues for RTP over DCCP
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org

All,
	At present there is some discussion on the Datagram Conegestion Control
Protocol mailing list (DCCP, also known as DCP, see references below) with
regards to the use of DCCP as an underlying transport for RTP.  A central
concern is that although one of the objectives of DCCP is to insure minimal
overhead in terms of packet size and end node processing time, using RTP
over DCCP will result in about 4 bytes of additional overhead per packet
for redundant representation of a sequence number.  This overhead is in
addition to the potentially redundant information transmitted in RTCP RR's,
which may be the same as that piggybacked on DCCP receiver reports.
Redundant data in this case includes metrics for estimating the RTT, and a
receiver loss metric.  
	The tradeoff currently being considered is the 4 byte per packet overhead
for a simplified API in which sequence numbers need not be represented to
the application layer by DCCP on a per packet basis.  In my opinion, the
RTCP RR can be easily resolved when we assume that the problem domain of
real-time metric reporting, and the use of these metrics by an RTP
application is rather different  that the use of reciever reports by DCCP.
When this is taken into account, the consolidation of potentially redundant
data in this case may not be appropriate. 
	What are the group's thoughts on these issues?

thanks,
damon

DCCP (DCP) references:

http://www.icir.org/kohler/dcp/draft-floyd-dcp-problem-00b.txt
http://www.icir.org/kohler/dcp/draft-kohler-dcp-03.txt
http://www.icir.org/kohler/dcp/draft-padhye-dcp-ccid3-03.txt

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt