Re: [MMUSIC] Question about Bundle and Legacy Interop (RE: Bundle, TURN and Legacy Interop)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:20 PM
> To: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com; andrew.hutton@siemens-
> enterprise.com; mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: [MMUSIC] Question about Bundle and Legacy Interop (RE: Bundle,
> TURN and Legacy Interop)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> A question related to legacy interop for Bundle. Bundle was originally
> motivated by RTCWeb, but since RTCWeb uses SDP, it has become a more
> generic SDP issue. However, does the legacy interop issue concern RTCWeb
> at all, or is it issue purely for SIP-based devices wanting to apply Bundle?
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I understand it, RTCWeb to Legacy interop can be accommodated
> by a gateway that on one side supports all the bells and whistles of RTCWeb
> such as Bundle and trickle-ICE, and to the other side uses existing
> offer/answer procedures without ICE or Bundle. Right? Or is there a
> particular reason why a WebRTC implementation should assume the other
> end (from its perspective) won't do Bundle?
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen some drafts claiming that Bundle would be harmful in for instance
> cellular networks for QoS differentiation. Is that the motivation where the
> non-Bundled RTCWeb use comes from, or are there some other good
> reasons?

Not just for cellular but for any scenario in which QoS is based on using different 5-tuples for media flows for which different treatment is desired.

Cheers,
Charles

> 
> For SIP the legacy considerations are of course much more clear. But are the
> SIP vendors interested in Bundle? Presumably the IMS SIP vendors at least
> not, if it complicates their QoS setup.
> 
> 
> 
> Markus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of ext Christer Holmberg
> Sent: 13 March, 2013 22:12
> To: Hutton, Andrew; mmusic_ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Bundle, TURN and Legacy Interop
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing prevents you from only sending host candidates in the first offer, of
> you want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Windows using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hutton, Andrew [andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com]
> To: mmusic@ietf.org [mmusic@ietf.org]
> Subject: [MMUSIC] Bundle, TURN and Legacy Interop
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It seems that one of the motivations of the current bundle-03 proposal is
> that the first offer is compatible with a legacy device and that a second offer
> is required for bundle (See
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-mmusic-9.pdf)
> 
> One issue that I see is that if TURN is being used there could be a significant
> overhead in creating the first offer is multiple TURN allocations are needed
> for each m-line which will all then have to be released if bundle is used.
> 
> I am not sure if there is a way to avoid this other but the draft should I think
> mention this issue.
> 
> Regards
> Andy
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic