Re: [Dart] ICE might send your traffic over TCP

<> Thu, 24 July 2014 07:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AC31A00D2 for <>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.251
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qzBJ3HFbSHTB for <>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D44CA1A0108 for <>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2014 09:54:23 +0200
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,722,1400018400"; d="scan'208";a="109110656"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 24 Jul 2014 09:54:23 +0200
Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([]) by ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:54:23 +0200
From: <>
To: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:54:22 +0200
Thread-Topic: ICE might send your traffic over TCP
Thread-Index: AQHPprMFiUVrQpioSUe4c1RT1xtq+puu0UIw
Message-ID: <CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F502D8EA763B@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Dart] ICE might send your traffic over TCP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports discussion list\"" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:54:28 -0000


Let's briefly discuss your point below: Different drop precedences are required if congestion within a PHB group may occur. TCP is designed for reliable transport. In case of a loss, TCP will reduce bandwidth and retransmit the dropped information. I'm not an RTP expert. The few applications known to me don't seem to benefit from such a behavior, if a single application flow uses different drop precedence levels in combination with TCP.

It may make sense to have different TCP flows marked by different drop precedences. The less important TCP flows get throttled in the case of congestion. But is there a need to avoid re-ordering across different drop precedences, which is an AF PHB group feature? Again, I'm not an RTP expert - but that doesn't sound like making a lot of sense too. 

In general, I'd be interested to learn, if some applications were benefitting from ECN (or a congestion indication by marking rather than by dropping). Independent from the question whether they use TCP or RTP transport. 



From: Dart [] On behalf of Jonathan Lennox
Subject: [Dart] ICE might send your traffic over TCP


How (say) a WebRTC implementation should handle API requests for multiple drop precedences when the underlying ICE channel is TCP is unclear to me.

Jonathan Lennox