Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP

[Dan Wing <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 14, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Dan Wing <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Oct 14, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > But in practice I suppose the relay will be conveniently located relative to one of the two endpoints.
> 
> I think that is a separate problem.  Smart ICE candidate prioritization would choose the "best candidate" (for some value of "best candidate").  The ICE connectivity check round-trip time is an oft-cited example of a reasonable metric (although it doesn't measure bandwidth and packet loss is considered by some to mislead [but if a path is lossy it may indeed be a very undesirable path]).  Geolocation of the TURN IP address versus my own IP address could also influence ICE candidate prioritization or candidate selection.
> 
> -d
> 
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> I don't think I understand who is running a geolocation algorithm in this scenario.  Can you elaborate?

The RTCWEB host.  For example, it could ask a geolocation service how many miles away the TURN server's IP address is from itself.  I'm not saying this is better than just doing a STUN transaction with that same TURN server; I just wanted another way to influence ICE candidate selection.

-d


> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted
> 
>  
> 
> >
> >       Thanks,
> >       Paul
> >
> >> Markus
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> >>> Of ext Parthasarathi R
> >>> Sent: 14 October, 2013 21:55
> >>> To: [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> My point is that the direct media connection has to be given priority over
> >>> TURN based mechanism. In case of ICE-TCP, there is a possibility for the
> >>> direction connection between two browsers involved in the WebRTC session
> >>> and should be given priority over TURN based mechanism. So, 6) TCP based
> >>> candidates (ICE-TCP) - MUST
> >>>
> >>> There is an assumption in the discussion that the incoming TCP traffic is not
> >>> allowed through firewall. In case it is the problem to be solved, RTCWeb
> >>> usecase and requirement has to be updated. I noticed in
> >>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12 (published today) that
> >>> there is no such requirement. I'll write the mail in RTCWeb WG to get the
> >>> clarity on the requirement in case the firewall forbidding incoming TCP traffic
> >>> is a matter of missing text in the requirement.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Partha
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pntaw mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw