IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012))

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 29 November 2012 07:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B9C21F8A11 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:18:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P9cWhpb2h6zA for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:18:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771D521F8A0D for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 88AF73242FA; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:17:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCH11.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.27]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6BC0B238055; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:17:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH11.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.27]) with mapi; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:17:35 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:17:33 +0100
Thread-Topic: PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012))
Thread-Index: AQHNy+NgJQ6ymYe7QUWcXPDF1+VorpgAZbGQ
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E98AB1548@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <CCD911B9.C3CA%repenno@cisco.com> <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06041761F4@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06041761F4@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.10.24.110314
Subject: [pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012))
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 07:18:29 -0000

Dear all, 

Below some answers for the questions raised for this draft. 


>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la 
>part de Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
>Envoyé : lundi 26 novembre 2012 15:36
>À : pcp@ietf.org
>Objet : [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012)
>
>FRI 1120-1330 (note new end time) =================================
>
>
>Reserving N and N+1 Ports with PCP: Preserving Parity & Contiguity
>draft-boucadair-pcp-rtp-rtcp                          (10, Jaqueline
>Queiroz)
>
>Stuart Cheshire: This seems wrong for PCP to take on additional
>responsibility
>for the sake of a single legacy protocol
>
>Dan Wing: We should ask the SIP WG what they think.

Med: The procedure is not specific to SIP/SDP, it is even valid for non-sdp protocols. Are you suggesting we send a message to mmusic WG for instance? 

>
>Stuart Cheshire: NAT-PMP and IGD don't do this today, so how 
>"essential"
>can it
>be?

Med: Is this really a reason to not do it for PCP? 

 How do even/odd SIP devices work today? Why is it 
>"essential" that PCP
>give
>them something new, which they currently manage without?

Med: What we are proposing in this draft is very very simple. If this option is not supported, we will continue with current practices (which have many drawbacks):

* enable an ALG in the NAT (I'm more concerned about the CGN case)
* or enabled some mechanism in the service side (e.g., SBC, Proxy Server)

The proposed PCP option allows 

* to remove any service-specific ALG handling RTP/RTCP traversal from the CGN/NAT
* Simplify the service access point (e.g., SBC): no need for hosted nat traversal
* For the SIP case, there is even no need to use symmetric SIP, Symmetric RTP, etc. 
* No issue with unidirectional media sessions

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email