Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle offer with different ports - where to expect media?

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>>>>>>> What happens when the offerer knows the answerer has bundle 
>>>>>>> support, sends all m-lines with the same port, then the answerer 
>>>>>>> splits the first line away from the bundle? Would the answerer 
>>>>>>> still send everything to the same port?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We discussed this week,
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, sorry, I didn't follow this closely.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and the outcome (at least my read of it :) was that the answerer 
>>>>>> is not allowed to split any m- lines away from the bundle in this 
>>>>>> case. Instead the answerer will have to send a new offer for the 
>>>>>> split, allowing new ports to be negotiated at both ends.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so shouldn't the same thing happen in the case with different 
>>>>> ports?
>>>>
>>>> I suggested that it should never be allowed to split an m- line from 
>>>> a bundle group in an answer, but others had other opinions.
>>>
>>> I don't see how we could allow it in one case and disallow it in the 
>>> other. The only difference between the two cases is how informed the 
>>> offerer is about the answerers bundle support capabilities and I 
>>> don't really understand why this would influence the decision to 
>>> allow splitting bundles one way or the other.
>> 
>> It is a different case because the same port *can't* both be used as 
>> the bundle port and a port for an unbundled m-line.
>
> Why not? Obviously the offerer was prepared to demultiplex traffic there. Why wouldn't it be able to continue doing so even if the answerer would prefer to receive it separately?
>
> Note that I am not defending such an approach. I'd much prefer that splitting is only allowed when re-offering.

Well, it could maybe work - but that means that the endpoint using the same port would have to include the m- line in the bundle group in subsequent offers/answers - otherwise you break the rule of not being allowed to use the same port number in an m- line :)


>>>> HOWEVER, it would still not help in the case where the 1st m- line 
>>>> is rejected.
>>>
>>> Well, how about looking at it this way: the offerer specifies a 
>>> bundle port in the first m=line. This also happens to be the port for 
>>> the first media line but the two are different things and just happen 
>>> to have the same value for reasons related to syntax and convenience.
>>>
>>> A bundle supporting answerer should understand this. After receiving 
>>> the offer that answerer has learned the bundle port number. Rejecting 
>>> the first m=line in the answer does not change this.
>> 
>> There are many reasons that an answerer may reject an m-line.
>> It is *possible* that it is rejecting it because it has a problem with 
>> the address (c=) for the m-line in the offer. If so, then if you 
>> insist on using it as the bundle address, even if the m-line is 
>> refused, then there is no way for the answerer to refuse it.
>> 
>> (*Why* it would have a problem is an open question. Maybe its IPv6 and 
>> the answerer can't use it, or maybe its an FQDN and it can't be 
>> resolved. I realize this is unlikely. But making the assumption that 
>> the address must be acceptable to the answerer is IMO not a good 
>> idea.)
>
> Aha! That's a good point.
>
> Still, the thing that I don't quite understand is: if the answerer has a problem with the c= line, how could that problem only apply to the first m= line and not to the entire bundle?

It could. The reason we're talking about the first m= line is because it has been suggested that should represent the "bundle port".

Regards,

Christer



>>>> Of course the answer would come with the first m=line having a 0 port 
>>>> but the offerer would then just learn the bundle port number at the 
>>>> first m=line with a non-zero port.
>>> 
>>> I presume you must have a motivation for wanting to go this way.
>>> Are you thinking this will simplify the implementation?
>
> No. The implementation is going to be slightly more complicated indeed because instead of having one bundle demuxing socket and 
> two regular ones (well ... if rtcp demuxing counts as regular) you would have three of them. I don't think this would be particularly horrifying in terms of complexity though.
>
> Still, I think being consistent about the ports where one could get multiplexed data is a good thing, and it could help (humans) when analysing traffic and debugging network issues.

Emil

--
https://jitsi.org