Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Q14: Mandate usage of RTP/RTCP mux within a BUNDLE group? [was: On the sparsity of RTP Payload types]

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Thu, 20 March 2014 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F19D1A06F8 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 02:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Um1Cjb-3XXo0 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 02:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F04E1A0699 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 02:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f038e000005d01-47-532ab9cae56b
Received: from ESESSHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C7.A2.23809.AC9BA235; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:50:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.347.0; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:50:01 +0100
Message-ID: <532AB9C9.1020602@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:50:01 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D23329D@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D23329D@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuplluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3RvfUTq1gg0VX5C22ThWymLr8MYsD k8eCTaUeS5b8ZApgiuKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DK+L9kAWvBfqGK11/+MzYwNvJ3MXJySAiYSNxY O48FwhaTuHBvPVsXIxeHkMAhRomzN+6yQDjLGSWOn17M1MXIwcEroC0x8Z0TSAOLgKpE+6w5 YM1sAhYSN380soHYogLBEjsP/GYEsXkFBCVOznwCViMiECPxq+8OWJxZQF2i53cLM4gtLFAt 0X9hM1hcSMBXYuekJ2BxTgE/ifuLN4CtlRAQl+hpDIJo1ZOYcrUFaoy8RPPW2cwQrdoSDU0d rBMYhWYh2TwLScssJC0LGJlXMbLnJmbmpJcbbWIEBunBLb9VdzDeOSdyiFGag0VJnPfDW+cg IYH0xJLU7NTUgtSi+KLSnNTiQ4xMHJxSDYwTjnZMuJj98v53AT7PNVdtixdotM3Ye/DM/YsC R60vSs9ds2Dm5walz2oTHvn/n8t+Y4JNqNfqtx2i7ofSYqquaL5t4uU+qy0sMF9Z9VzX5LDi Dp87k8/3TTG5dvKlzEvh6v8xHh39izd2KVn362090lv+VC1Kgb/A5sBboaxLDeFMRqsnrLdS YinOSDTUYi4qTgQAR2zsDyACAAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/7svqimfXSXlAxcdFc3wyGUwdty4
Cc: "mmusic (E-mail)" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE Q14: Mandate usage of RTP/RTCP mux within a BUNDLE group? [was: On the sparsity of RTP Payload types]
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:50:14 -0000

On 2014-03-16 15:16, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Do other people have opinions on this?

I have considered this proposal in a wider context and have the
following reflections and also an additional motivation why I personally
consider it important that a bundle-group shall be possible to be
established with RTCP on either the same transport flow (5-tuple) as
RTP, i.e. using a=rtcp-mux, or using separate transport flows (one for
RTP, one for RTCP), i.e. no a=rtcp-mux.

First of all BUNDLE is a general signaling mechanism it is possible to
apply to any user of SDP offer/answer. WebRTC is the first and the one
which pushed it into existence, but I am pretty certain it will not be
the only user of  the mechanism.

What Justin is pushing for, prevents one to have multiple media streams
of different or the same type, i.e. what ever you put in the same bundle
group, to have RTCP separated on transport level from RTP.

In most cases this doesn't matter, but where it can matter is when using
QoS, for example in cellular environments. Being forced to put RTCP on
the same QoS treatment as the media will either reduce the achievable
quality or increase the cost. Being able to spend these commonly 5% of
bandwidth on improving media or avoiding higher cost is significant in
such an environment.

Thus, I think everyone needs to thing twice about this. Shall really
relatively minor implementation concerns and focus on general Internet
only deployments win out over BUNDLEs applicability and the possibility
to get the most out of any QoS when available.

To be clear, I am fine with having usage of a=rtcp-mux as default
behavior, but from my perspective we need to be able to actually
negotiate if one turns on RTP/RTCP multiplexing using the a=rtcp-mux
attribute when doing an round of offer/answer based signaling.

cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------