Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 14, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> 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?

regards,

Ted

>
> >
> >       Thanks,
> >       Paul
> >
> >> Markus
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: pntaw-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pntaw-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> >>> Of ext Parthasarathi R
> >>> Sent: 14 October, 2013 21:55
> >>> To: pntaw@ietf.org
> >>> 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
> >> pntaw@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pntaw mailing list
> > pntaw@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
>
> _______________________________________________
> pntaw mailing list
> pntaw@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
>