Re: [MMUSIC] bundle-11: BUNDLE accpeted, but RTCP Mux rejected

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Wed, 08 October 2014 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@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 DF43E1A0451 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 IYQgtVSMtO5d for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67D491A0372 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79da6d0000008c7-71-54358b1224f6
Received: from ESESSHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.30]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 78.21.02247.21B85345; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 21:05:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.136]) by ESESSHC004.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.30]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 21:05:51 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "Stach, Thomas" <thomas.stach@unify.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: bundle-11: BUNDLE accpeted, but RTCP Mux rejected
Thread-Index: Ac/iRGIfWukm+VgKTsyCbXLuDZy5KwAGEVHgABwyUoAABzpZoAADjPnAAAyQalA=
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:05:50 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D46EFC7@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE121E224ECF@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D46CF08@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE121E227C60@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D46E6EF@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE121E227D6D@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE121E227D6D@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.149]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D46EFC7ESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprNIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7nK5Qt2mIQfstA4uOyWwWx/q62Cym Ln/MYnFy5zZmBxaPKxOusHpM+b2R1WPJkp9MHtt7HrMEsERx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZXyZt4Sp 4OEHxorHqx4zNTC+vMzYxcjJISFgItG3rp8dwhaTuHBvPVsXIxeHkMARRom/V9azQjiLGSW+ /t3H0sXIwcEmYCHR/U8bJC4i0M4o8f/oKVaQbmYBGYkZZxuZQGxhAQeJuQe2sYDYIgKOEoff 3GCGsP0k3m1dDlbDIqAisW3SSTCbV8BX4sD1m1CbHzBJXO/9wwqyjFPAX2L+kViQGkag676f WsMEsUtc4taT+UwQVwtILNlznhnCFpV4+fgfK4StJLH28HYWiPp8iQPnm9ghdglKnJz5hGUC o+gsJKNmISmbhaQMIq4jsWD3JzYIW1ti2cLXzDD2mQOPmZDFFzCyr2IULU4tLs5NNzLSSy3K TC4uzs/Ty0st2cQIjM2DW35b7WA8+NzxEKMAB6MSD++CWSYhQqyJZcWVuYcYpTlYlMR5F56b FywkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWhRfVJqTWnyIkYmDU6qBsdjqp+Sv481n7dmCQ5MuyMSwzn/KH1CR77XA 0UnaZFXyyZDJggJeKsH3S5Mva6gVJh3I4da36BQ4Ha06/+3LwCs1Mh//Xl1i9vSo3kGfStUl W3pmdvT2/l1ke+u5kZetqJrpLkWtEOXU3qWb3vzMU1JLP/iHyWfG7/ib1T98Mgvs7lddvfJM iaU4I9FQi7moOBEA6USCfq4CAAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/X3KgtAuXedRlLR1lrhjEWE_HIBg
Cc: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] bundle-11: BUNDLE accpeted, but RTCP Mux rejected
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: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 19:06:05 -0000

Hi,

Do we really need text for both sending and receiving?

If we say that an entity sends something towards port X, I think it is obvious that the other endpoint will listen on port X.

Regards,

Christer

From: Stach, Thomas [mailto:thomas.stach@unify.com]
Sent: 08 October 2014 16:21
To: Christer Holmberg; Harald Alvestrand; Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Cc: mmusic
Subject: RE: bundle-11: BUNDLE accpeted, but RTCP Mux rejected

inline

From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com]
Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Oktober 2014 13:37
To: Stach, Thomas; Harald Alvestrand; Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Cc: mmusic
Subject: RE: bundle-11: BUNDLE accpeted, but RTCP Mux rejected

Hi Thomas,

I suggest something like this:

In section 10.3.2.3:

OLD TEXT:

"If the answerer rejects usage of RTP/RTCP multiplexing within the
                BUNDLE group, it MUST NOT assign an SDP 'rtcp-mux' or SDP 'rtcp'
                attribute to any bundled "m=" line in the answer."

NEW TEXT:

"If the answerer rejects usage of RTP/RTCP multiplexing within the
                BUNDLE group, it MUST NOT assign an SDP 'rtcp-mux' or SDP 'rtcp'
                attribute to any bundled "m=" line in the answer. The answerer will,
                based on the port number of the selected offerer BUNDLE address,
                use the next higher (odd) destination port number [RFC3550] for
sending RTCP packets associated with a bundled "m=" line towards
the offerer,"
[TS] I'd like to add something for receiving RCTP. With a slight re-wording the new text would be
If the answerer rejects usage of RTP/RTCP multiplexing within the
BUNDLE group, it MUST NOT assign an SDP 'rtcp-mux' or SDP 'rtcp'
attribute to any bundled "m=" line in the answer.
 Based on the port number of the selected offerer BUNDLE address,
 the answerer will send RTCP packets associated with any bundled "m=" line
 to the next higher (odd) destination port [RFC3550].
 Based on the port number of the selected answerer BUNDLE address,
 the answerer will receive RTCP packets associated with any bundled "m=" line
 at the next higher (odd) destination port [RFC3550].
This means that the associated RTCP streams for bundled "m=" lines
 are bundled at the next higher (odd) destination port


In section 10.3.2.4:

OLD TEXT:

                "If the answerer does not accept the usage of RTP/RTCP multiplexing
                [Section 10.3.2.3], the offerer MUST use separate 5-tuples for RTP
                and RTCP."

NEW TEXT:

                "If the answerer does not accept the usage of RTP/RTCP multiplexing
                [Section 10.3.2.3], the offerer MUST use separate 5-tuples for RTP
                and RTCP. The answerer will, based on the port number of the answerer
BUNDLE address, use the next higher (odd) destination port number [RFC3550]
for sending RTCP packets associated with a bundled "m=" line towards the
answerer."

[TS] Similar here
If the answerer does not accept the usage of RTP/RTCP multiplexing
[Section 10.3.2.3], the offerer MUST use separate 5-tuples for RTP
and RTCP.
Based on the port number of the selected offerer BUNDLE address,
 the offerer will receive RTCP packets associated with any bundled "m=" line
 at the next higher (odd) destination port [RFC3550].
 Based on the port number of the selected answerer BUNDLE address,
 the offerer will send RTCP packets associated with any bundled "m=" line
 to the next higher (odd) destination port [RFC3550].


Regards,

Christer




From: Stach, Thomas [mailto:thomas.stach@unify.com]
Sent: 8. lokakuuta 2014 13:06
To: Christer Holmberg; Harald Alvestrand; Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Cc: mmusic
Subject: RE: bundle-11: BUNDLE accpeted, but RTCP Mux rejected


Christer,

From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2014 20:35
To: Stach, Thomas; Harald Alvestrand; Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Cc: mmusic
Subject: RE: bundle-11: BUNDLE accpeted, but RTCP Mux rejected

Hi Thomas,

>BUNDLE can be used separate from RFC5761 RTCP-Multiplexing.
>I can't find text in bundle-11 where the answerer would send its RTCP packets if it accepted BUNDLE, but rejected RTCP-muxing.
>I see two options:
>1. The answerer sends all RTCP packets to the shared RTP-port+1 of the negotiated shared address.
>2. The answerer sends the RTCP packets to separate ports based on the unique addresses in the m-lines of the offer?

Alternative 1) is correct. I guess we could add some text to clarify that.
[TS] Yes, please. The current text is not sufficiently clear.

>The offerer on the other hand will only receive a shared address. I assume it then has to send all its RTCP packets
>to the shared RTP-port+1 of the answerer.

Yes.

>Is my understanding correct or am I completely off-track?

Assuming my understanding is correct, your understanding is correct :)

>Supposed I'm correct, then independent from the response, I'm asking if there really is a use case for that.
>In case 1, one would have to demux the RTP streams and RTCP streams from two separate ports instead of a single port. How much implementation effort >is saved in that case?

I am not sure what you mean. Are you asking how much implementation effort is saved if you don't have to de-mux RTP and RTCP?
[TS] Yes.  I was questioning myself what benefit there is in not mandating RTCP-mux.
In the meantime I looked up again the discussion on "Q14" that led to having rtcp-mux optional. I agree with the outcome.
Thanks!

>In case 2 the RTCP handling at offerer and answerer is completely different. In addition, you still need "a lot" of RTCP ports and take advantage of only half >of the BUNDLE benefits.

Correct. But, case 2 is not applicable (unless the endpoints choose not to use BUNDLE to begin with, that is...).

Regards,

Christer