Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP

Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> Mon, 07 October 2013 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A22511E8125 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 13:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uVV-cRVwO+Vx for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 13:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7946111E8131 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 13:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5444; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381176515; x=1382386115; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=kd8NP7yKgxTcHRy8rlo5Czc9cdA3EV2JFYViE+cdZYA=; b=ec4wvrgwljFXmzYgcNksTjp7hkfRcxYpxEBf/KBr2O0ZnwXmfkQHZ6N+ /zvDfODQMPzPC3NGUk5epQcxvwdvwfy9Yxi7uAvhAno1brkMW2/FwRavp /VgN3OOZlA/vWEhLUCzYAJhyrWUiC1Iqm3PTGAg8XcWO9v+ePusOtDdjB Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFAPUTU1KrRDoG/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4rxySV4EiFnSCJQEBAQMBAQEBNy4EAggDBQcECxEEAQEBJwcnHwMBBQgGExuHWQMJBQ27F4xmgjgzBwaDGYEEA4FTh2aKa4F1gWiBL4sbhTaDRBw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1051,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="91573650"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Oct 2013 20:08:33 +0000
Received: from sjc-vpn5-197.cisco.com (sjc-vpn5-197.cisco.com [10.21.88.197]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r97K8V4S018602; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 20:08:32 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLU406-EAS274696C3D9DFE505F96B8E393130@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 13:08:31 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2924C1EA-613D-4B05-BD24-4CFD1411386E@cisco.com>
References: <CAGTXFp92jSzQz05uHngzscz88n=fT_JPbEvQRxgeUUqPVRQUyQ@mail.gmail.com> <52244DD7.1020900@alvestrand.no> <BLU405-EAS183E36A927CA42270B6936D93300@phx.gbl> <522590EE.7070508@alvestrand.no> <C632A223-A55A-47F4-B083-9BDC447DA959@cisco.com> <52262657.3080208@alvestrand.no> <A2C315DB-1882-4BD1-A8C0-E8AF7DEA48F4@cisco.com> <00ca01cec387$f881cae0$e98560a0$@co.in> <BLU406-EAS274696C3D9DFE505F96B8E393130@phx.gbl>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "pntaw@ietf.org" <pntaw@ietf.org>, Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
Subject: Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP
X-BeenThere: pntaw@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for practices related to proxies, NATs, TURN, and WebRTC" <pntaw.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pntaw>, <mailto:pntaw-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pntaw>
List-Post: <mailto:pntaw@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pntaw-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw>, <mailto:pntaw-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 20:08:41 -0000

On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> 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.

-d




> 
>> On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:07 AM, "Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> 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: pntaw-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pntaw-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>>> Of Dan Wing
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 1:47 AM
>>> To: Harald Alvestrand
>>> Cc: Bernard Aboba; pntaw@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 3, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
>>> 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
>>> pntaw@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pntaw mailing list
>> pntaw@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw