IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] non-SIP ICE: useful or not?

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Sun, 14 September 2008 04:14 UTC

Return-Path: <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mmusic-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mmusic-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580EF3A692E; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: mmusic@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CD93A68B6 for <mmusic@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.687
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.687 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.912, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EIthsvnkhirS for <mmusic@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 114B13A6927 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,395,1217808000"; d="scan'208";a="155013329"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Sep 2008 04:14:14 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m8E4EEl5009886; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:14:14 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8E4EEWv024719; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:14:14 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Darren' <dplore@gmail.com>, 'IETF MMUSIC WG' <mmusic@ietf.org>
References: <488098A2.9090200@cisco.com> <489246F0.1090309@sipeerior.com> <5e6e0f30809131626pa4efd6bo7dbece6f62647f49@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:14:14 -0700
Message-ID: <0b2001c91620$58fc3ce0$6ba36b80@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <5e6e0f30809131626pa4efd6bo7dbece6f62647f49@mail.gmail.com>
Thread-Index: AckV+C7rv0YzdMb3Treewyhr+CGFYQAKA2PA
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1899; t=1221365654; x=1222229654; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[MMUSIC]=20non-SIP=20ICE=3A=20useful=20 or=20not? |Sender:=20; bh=CxLkCq6ONhrvz/gFjOxY8jLKWlivBhxWZQkmYetr/Ew=; b=E1nwPeJG4EBOYNNDi6T1r2KXRSyS6/6TQ3f8T5jUjjYD/3EaTma/i+/Rb9 3yl6MSXq+7l7RycAEGFqzxiE3mEH6ZrGGcQFy9r+efdoLehoiQ0q+mditFzO vaaoS3frciBjBvSpzT92nwNlZa/pPL7MD6OkTGCQQWX1UWvhe8yJ4=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] non-SIP ICE: useful or not?
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Darren
> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 4:26 PM
> To: IETF MMUSIC WG
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] non-SIP ICE: useful or not?
> 
> My interest for non-sip ICE is for P2P video streaming.  We use RTSP
> today and ICE conceptually sounds like a good idea.
> 
> However, as Magnus said one still needs the equivalent of a TURN/proxy
> server for RTSP to use ICE.  This is probably not unique to ICE as
> conceivably any other form of guaranteed P2P NAT traversal for RTSP
> seems to need a proxy server as a last resort.

If you can ensure the RTSP server has a publicly-routable IP address 
-- which is oftentimes the situation with many of today's RTSP 
architectures -- you won't need a media relay (TURN) server.

-d


> -Darren Loher
> Chief Architect
> Envysion, Inc.
> http://envysion.com
> 
> 
> > Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd like to get some discussion going around this question 
> prior to the
> >> meeting. Please take a look at:
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice
> -nonsip-01.txt
> >>
> >> The main question: is a draft like this sufficiently 
> useful to produce or
> >> not? Given its main audience are the (relatively few) 
> protocol designers of
> >> things using ICE, there is an argument to be made we don't 
> really need this.
> >> I'd especially welcome comments from Miika, Magnus, Hannes 
> and other folks
> >> actually producing documents that would use the contents here.
> >>
> >> Comments on details welcome too, though secondary I think 
> to the main
> >> question.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jonathan R.
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email