Re: [pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012))
"Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)" <ssenthil@cisco.com> Fri, 30 November 2012 13:50 UTC
Return-Path: <ssenthil@cisco.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 62E2021F8933 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 05:50:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 ZdVLLBaSA+nP for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 05:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3A821F88FC for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 05:50:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4076; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1354283441; x=1355493041; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=S6zDLJ+OJJOexhx4tfItmBSbv2jCk3ZwVgAsJXutd7k=; b=QY8Lggc1r01HjO71nLjuC1hwkFXpOrUSjtTdWq7rrexUGmgI0P8s7r9Y l7cGQIihnD0VPEO8joetJJQE1jALSPNUqb18iatJbuYkPXb9l2T1D0Vn6 0FOZ54A240aHOFRg+c6vTF8NeFo4b7V0PPYJQAvTUbXTsD3TP6ISpy0P9 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EACW5uFCtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABEwA0Wc4IeAQEBBAEBARVWFwYBCBEEAQELHS4LFAkIAgQBEgiICAy/WASMQAqDVmEDiCieHIJygiE
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6911"; a="147754679"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2012 13:50:40 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAUDoe7S005606 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:50:40 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.148]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:50:40 -0600
From: "Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)" <ssenthil@cisco.com>
To: "Dan Wing (dwing)" <dwing@cisco.com>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012))
Thread-Index: AQHNzwGu6vjFfIyBxEWPaEL+hLko+w==
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:50:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CB1B483277FEC94E9B58357040EE5D02322BA9FA@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <074801cdce8b$1cb9b140$562d13c0$@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010
x-originating-ip: [10.117.198.141]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <5139C0DF6063514DBECD61D7BBAFD76E@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:50:42 -0000
On 11/29/12 6:41 PM, "Dan Wing (dwing)" <dwing@cisco.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com >> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:18 PM >> To: Reinaldo Penno (repenno); pcp@ietf.org >> Subject: [pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, >> 2012)) >> >> 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? > >The port adjacency is (was) a need of RTP (RFC1889, RFC3550) which >is now owned by AVTCORE. > >A survey of endpoints that support a=rtcp (RFC3605) or send their RTP >and RTCP over the same port (as being pursued by RTCWEB) would be >valuable. The question comes down to: does the industry still need >port adjacency, or by the time PCP standardizes this functionality >and it gets deployed will it be relevant any more? It will take a >couple of years. It has been several years since a=rtcp has been defined and in the live deployments that we have seen, it is rarely used. I don¹t see that rapidly changing in the next couple of years. > >> >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? > >It does demonstrate that there seems little _requirement_ for >this functionality - or else it would have been implemented >or been a must-have requirement. That is, there are some sort >of workaround/workarounds the industry is currently using today. Do we know what that workaround is? That can be helpful. Thanks Senthil > > >> >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 > >Would SBCs be de-installed if this feature is added to PCP? > >> * For the SIP case, there is even no need to use symmetric SIP, >> Symmetric RTP, etc. >> * No issue with unidirectional media sessions > >Those benefits are beyond what was presented at the PCP meeting. They >are pretty interesting / valuable. > >Can the SIP and/or AVTCORE working groups help convince PCP that this >is necessary / helpful / useful? > >-d > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pcp mailing list >> pcp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp > >_______________________________________________ >pcp mailing list >pcp@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
- [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alper Yegin
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Sam Hartman
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alper Yegin
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alper Yegin
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alan DeKok
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Sam Hartman
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Yoshihiro Ohba
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alan DeKok
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Yoshihiro Ohba
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Yoshihiro Ohba
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alper Yegin
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alper Yegin
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alan DeKok
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Sam Hartman
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alan DeKok
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alan DeKok
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Yoshihiro Ohba
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Yoshihiro Ohba
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Sam Hartman
- [pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRIDAY, … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Rafa Marin Lopez
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRID… Tom Taylor
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alan DeKok
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Yoshihiro Ohba
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alan DeKok
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Rafa Marin Lopez
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alan DeKok
- Re: [pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRID… Dan Wing
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Rafa Marin Lopez
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Yoshihiro Ohba
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alan DeKok
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Alan DeKok
- Re: [pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRID… Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)
- Re: [pcp] PCP MoM (FRIDAY, November 9, 2012) Yoshihiro Ohba
- Re: [pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRID… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRID… Simon Perreault
- Re: [pcp] PCP for RTP/RTCP (was RE: PCP MoM (FRID… Dan Wing