Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP

[Dan Wing <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 7, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Michael Tuexen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Oct 7, 2013, at 10:08 PM, Dan Wing <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> As you point out, in most cases ICE-TCP will not avoid use of TURN, so we are only talking about a modest efficiency gain for ICE-TCP and RTP over TCP, but a substantial increase in complexity. 
>>> 
>>> Running SCTP over TCP is undesirable because the congestion control in SCTP and TCP will interact poorly with each other.  
>> 
>> And, even if a full SCTP stack is run over a full TCP stack, that will work but I agree won't work well.  But working is better than not working in situations where UDP is blocked.
>> 
>> To work well, we might look at SCTP Minion (draft-iyengar-minion-concept, which disables TCP's congestion control in lieu of SCTP's congestion control) is one answer to those conflicting congestion controls.
> This would either require changing the TCP stack in the kernel or using a
> userland TCP stack without CC, which would require using a raw socket for
> sending, for receiving some other strategy, both would require root privileges...
> Or am I missing something?

Yes, start with something that works but is not optimal (SCTP over TCP) and expect/hope that one of the future paths are better:  OS vendors provide native SCTP support and networks support native SCTP, UDP is permitted by networks (allowing SCTP-over-UDP to work without competing CC), or OS vendors support SCTP Minion (which also avoids competing CC).

-d


> 
> Best regards
> Michael
>> 
>> -d
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:07 AM, "Parthasarathi R" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> RTP over TCP is unavoidable in case of RTCWeb media traffic has to traverse
>>>> through UDP blocking firewalls. TCP candidates with ICE (RFC 6544) may fail
>>>> due to the current OS implementation wherein TCP simultaneous Open will not
>>>> work. 
>>>> 
>>>> I have concern w.r.t TURN server as it introduces one extra network element
>>>> for RTCWeb session establishment. The current argument favoring for TURN
>>>> server is that RTP over TCP is required only till TURN server whereas the
>>>> media traffic between TURN server and the destination is UDP. In couple of
>>>> WebRTC deployment in Service provider network and Enterprise network, TURN
>>>> server will exist near to the destination and the WebRTC media traffic in
>>>> the internet is "RTP over TCP". I guess that Victor scenario falls under the
>>>> same category. In these deployment, RTP over TCP has advantage over TURN
>>>> over TCP as the extra element shall be avoided. 
>>>> 
>>>> Also, SCTP over DTLS over UDP will not work in case of RTCWeb media traffic
>>>> has to traverse through UDP blocking firewalls. So, there is a need of SCTP
>>>> over DTLS over TCP or multipath TCP kind of transport to meet this
>>>> requirement which needs separate discussion. 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Partha
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>>>> Of Dan Wing
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 1:47 AM
>>>>> To: Harald Alvestrand
>>>>> Cc: Bernard Aboba; [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 3, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 09/03/2013 07:25 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>>>>>>>> Multiple TCP connections seems like a suboptimal design, given the
>>>>> existence of other solutions like Minion or SCTP.
>>>>>>> Sure.  But those technologies weren't on the table when Victor did
>>>>> interactive audio/video over TCP, I'm sure.  Much like they weren't on
>>>>> the table when HTTP started doing multiple TCP connections back in the
>>>>> early days of Netscape.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Victor didn't provide a date, so I was thinking "recently" - SCTP is
>>>>> 10 years old at this point.
>>>>> 
>>>>> SCTP has been around a long time as a protocol but for a variety of
>>>>> reasons has seen no deployment on the Internet to date, including no
>>>>> availability in the mainstream OSs which is everyone's interest.  SCTP-
>>>>> over-UDP was only recently defined and its user-mode release was only
>>>>> 12 or 18 months ago or so.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Minion is newer than that, of course.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If both sides have TURN over TCP (or TURN over HTTP) enabled, and
>>>>> their respective TURN servers can talk UDP to each other, communication
>>>>> will occur, I think. I don't think we need to add TCP candidates for
>>>>> the TURN case in order to bypass firewalls.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We might want to do so for the benefit of the pure peer-to-peer
>>>>> case, but I'm not sure it's a case that's important enough to make 6062
>>>>> (TURN TCP allocations) or 6544 (ICE TCP allocations, no TURN server)
>>>>> into MUSTs for RTCWEB.
>>>>>>> I agree.  Additionally, before anyone ventures too far down that
>>>>> path it would be useful to understand how well the expected RTCWeb
>>>>> endpoints could do peer-to-peer TCP connections.  Reliable peer-to-peer
>>>>> TCP needs TCP simultaneous open needs to work well on both hosts, per
>>>>> the research by Saikat Guha and Paul Francis
>>>>> http://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2005/papers/imc05efiles/guha/guha.pd
>>>>> f.  In that research, they found Windows XP SP1 doesn't do simultaneous
>>>>> open well, but Windows XP with SP2 and SP3 and Linux worked okay.  I
>>>>> have not seen similar research for Android, OS X, or Windows 7 or
>>>>> Windows 8.
>>>>>> Indeed; that article seemed to indicate that the brand of NAT you
>>>>> bought was a decisive factor - it would be interesting to see if the
>>>>> state of the art has become more or less symmetric-TCP hostile in the
>>>>> intervening 8 years.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -d
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> pntaw mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pntaw mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pntaw mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
>> 
>