[Megaco] [H.248.57, H.248.RTPMUX] RTCP port allocation rules in case of RTP transport multiplexing

"Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com> Sun, 10 November 2013 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: megaco@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: megaco@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2729321E8094 for <megaco@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 06:38:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <YMrlTT9zA6D7>
X-Amavis-Modified: Mail body modified (defanged) by ietfa.amsl.com
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BANNED, message contains part: multipart/mixed | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet, .zip, H.248.57_RTCP_port_allocation_rules_Ed01.xlsx | .wmf, xl/media/image1.wmf
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.242
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.956, BAYES_00=-2.599, DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO=0.558, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YMrlTT9zA6D7 for <megaco@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 06:37:53 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1384094280-30882-0"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59A611E80E4 for <megaco@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 06:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id rAAEbX9B005539 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 10 Nov 2013 08:37:35 -0600 (CST)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id rAAEbVTN026637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:37:31 +0100
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.151]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:37:31 +0100
From: "Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Nevenka Biondic <nevenka.biondic@ericsson.com>, "Kall, Jan (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <jan.kall@nsn.com>, Tommy Young <tommy@huawei.com>, "Belling, Thomas (NSN - DE/Munich)" <thomas.belling@nsn.com>, "LANDAIS, BRUNO (BRUNO)" <bruno.landais@alcatel-lucent.com>, "megaco@ietf.org" <megaco@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:37:30 +0000
Message-ID: <786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1AC0F51EC@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 09:07:33 -0800
Cc: "Shaikh, Viqar A" <vshaikh@appcomsci.com>, 박주영 <jypark@etri.re.kr>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: [Megaco] [H.248.57, H.248.RTPMUX] RTCP port allocation rules in case of RTP transport multiplexing
X-BeenThere: megaco@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media Gateway Control <megaco.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/megaco>, <mailto:megaco-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/megaco>
List-Post: <mailto:megaco@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:megaco-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco>, <mailto:megaco-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:38:00 -0000

WARNING: contains banned part
--- Begin Message ---
Dear All,



the addition of SDP "a=rtcp-mux” to H.248 Iq profile (23.334/29.334) leads to RTCP port allocation rules which are not yet defined (due to the fact that Iq supports also “a=rtcp” besides the rsb property).

NOTE: Iq allows “a=rtcp” only in the H.248 RD, not in the H.248 LD, but there remains still open semantics.



Normative baseline is Table 1/H.248.57 (in case of “a=rtcp” support).

You know that the consideration of “a=rtcp-mux” is still an open action for H.248.57.



Like to recall again that there are four principal connection endpoints for RTP transport multiplexing: the LS, LD, RS and RD connection endpoints:



[cid:image003.png@01CEDE2A.26F3FD00]

H.248.57/Figure 1 - Connection endpoint naming conventions - the four
RTCP ports of a bidirectional RTP/RTCP session



Please find attach an evaluation of additional support of “a=rtcp-mux”, extending Table 1/H.248.57 by additional cells.



NOTE: RFC 5761 is NOT EXPLICIT on the usage of “a=rtcp” together with “a=rtcp-mux”! It’s mentioned twice in the text. My INTERPRETATION of RFC 5761: there is an IMPLICIT assumption that the SDP Offerer/Answerer SHALL NOT use both SDP attributes together. However, a different interpretation is that the parallel usage is allowed, and the receiving side is then applying “semantic of ignore”. Both interpretations might be valid. However, would prefer rather an explicit specification.



Any comments, proposals?

Albrecht
--- End Message ---