IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFDF021F89B5 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 0rZJWGKytKKd for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-sa01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B741F0D09 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com (in-mx.nokia.com [10.160.244.30]) by mgw-sa01.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id r2DMJxsE002561; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:00 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.21]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:19:58 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.2.232]) by 008-AM1MMR1-012.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.21]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.011; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:19:58 +0000
From: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
To: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com, andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com, mmusic@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: Question about Bundle and Legacy Interop (RE: [MMUSIC] Bundle, TURN and Legacy Interop)
Thread-Index: Ac4gM9MduoawFmZZSIaG4bq0lnVGTQ==
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:19:57 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7623BD7B3@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.129.67.65]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7623BD7B3008AM1MPN1042mgdn_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Mar 2013 22:19:59.0073 (UTC) FILETIME=[E6153510:01CE2038]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: [MMUSIC] Question about Bundle and Legacy Interop (RE: Bundle, TURN and Legacy Interop)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:20:10 -0000

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?

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<http://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<mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status