Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-tuple
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 11 June 2014 20:42 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dart@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BCBE1A029D for <dart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 OnQWQb5Ew4v4 for <dart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22d.google.com (mail-pb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DD0E1A0298 for <dart@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id um1so192752pbc.18 for <dart@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2oFnMkdT7sjAoJXK49HzvmqwJNlM5dqJyAARLkQQeL4=; b=WWrUEot9NRpPR8DkCTYlX3kQrki7MlVn0C1JuAEhRx9U7rhNjhBi3txQr+qzJTToyA vyVGcIwfCJU7qrsYSgsYvcVLk/pactb5CInlsZsMLyx7c97nSmwhN0iXBYmHF3d3Etqt 9dHDctaanq914zKhZbkYRLYLZGT+SbM/TgLL/kJX5lupued+cIMrvUqaiqrz6hFVBS+B JyNOiI8H1T72w8OT5DgwxVPRI+YnxG8+YUTyqItj14sg+4YJX2YGHUn9PDct19B5VCeg rsjDBGfa9GbpfobjRwTaptbmIAfjR9AnfaCrpYKD6rWFJtvFDePBEBHSkP+4bYpYZhwY yCCA==
X-Received: by 10.66.231.237 with SMTP id tj13mr16458075pac.136.1402519372814; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (68.195.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.195.68]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id is5sm76638191pbb.8.2014.06.11.13.42.50 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5398BF50.5040604@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:42:56 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076FD346C9@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076FD346C9@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dart/DbJTNRcq3rDS1zj2LMS2Q0e4WnE
Cc: "dart@ietf.org" <dart@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-tuple
X-BeenThere: dart@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" <dart.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dart>, <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dart/>
List-Post: <mailto:dart@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dart>, <mailto:dart-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:42:55 -0000
On 11/06/2014 07:59, Black, David wrote: > In another message, Ruediger Geib asked (>), and I responded: > > -------------------- > >> Is the following correct: >> >> UDP_5-tuple-+--transport protocol 1----- >> | >> +--RTP session 1----- >> | >> +--RTP session 2-----+---RTP_stream_2.1 >> | >> +---RTP_stream_2.2 >> |... > > Yes, that matches my understanding, although the author team would like to > see discussion of whether it's a good idea to mix RTP and non-RTP protocols > on the same 5-tuple - I'll copy your useful diagram into a separate message > to start that discussion. > > -------------------- > > This is that message, and I want to thank Ruediger for drawing that useful > diagram. > > The author team for draft-york would like input on whether the draft should > discuss mixing of RTP and non-RTP traffic on the same UDP 5-tuple, vs. using > separate 5-tuples (probably separate UDP ports) for RTP and non-RTP traffic. One observation is that we should be thinking about a 6-tuple these days (see RFC 6437). I don't think it makes much difference to the argument. Another observation is when load balancing is in play, things get a bit more complicated, but to a first approximation using the same 5-tuple or 6-tuple will usually ensure that all the packets reach the same load-balanced destination, which is probably a good thing. Third, reverting to the diffserv discussion, the same 5-tuple should ensure that all the packets would be classified the same (if they cross a diffserv domain boundary and get reclassified). Brian > > RTCWEB clearly intends to mix SCTP (via DTLS) and RTP traffic on the same > 5-tuple see the last paragraph of Section 3.5 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-04: > > RTCWEB implementations MUST support multiplexing of DTLS and RTP over > the same port pair, as described in the DTLS_SRTP specification > [RFC5764], section 5.1.2. All application layer protocol payloads > over this DTLS connection are SCTP packets. > > OTOH, concerns have been expressed about whether the not-exactly-elegant > demux processing specified in the reference (RFC 5764, Section 5.1.2) ought > to be recommended as a good way of doing this multiplexing. > > Please comment, including whether mixing SCTP and RTP on the same UDP > 5-tuple is a good idea (some rationale for doing this sort of multiplexing > onto a single 5-tuple can be found in Section 3 of draft-york-dart-dscp-rtp-00). > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > david.black@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Dart mailing list > Dart@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dart >
- [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-tuple Black, David
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Dan Wing
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Black, David
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Black, David
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Dan Wing
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Dan Wing
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Black, David
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Dan Wing
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Ruediger.Geib
- [Dart] IPv6 Flow labels? (Re: RTP and non-RTP tra… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Black, David
- Re: [Dart] IPv6 Flow labels? (Re: RTP and non-RTP… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Dart] RTP and non-RTP traffic on same UDP 5-… Brian E Carpenter
- [Dart] Protocols and port numbers (Re: RTP and no… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [Dart] Protocols and port numbers (Re: RTP an… Brian E Carpenter