Re: More on demultiplexing

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Thu, 07 December 2017 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C794127076 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 10:59:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K_HrDohh0adi for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 10:59:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp90.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp90.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22AE9126D3F for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 10:59:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp28.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp28.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1437A5350; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:59:44 -0500 (EST)
X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: by smtp28.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id 9FE8954B6; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:59:43 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender-Id: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: from [10.1.3.55] (S0106004268479ae3.cg.shawcable.net [70.77.44.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.7.12); Thu, 07 Dec 2017 13:59:44 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: More on demultiplexing
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAc3NopLuEGQvuvu82X2LpuL-RiCoKzdfiWYUSfzfhRKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 11:59:42 -0700
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1726D0F2-CE76-418C-BE24-CA3492F4CC27@iii.ca>
References: <CABcZeBO=WCTLuuxaOJXKzQdiBduOxLdoqNtMpvPatBOAwNjZkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAc3NopLuEGQvuvu82X2LpuL-RiCoKzdfiWYUSfzfhRKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/FrHKFJB2QsU5RGj-0WGn4J_ytXo>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 18:59:52 -0000

> On Dec 6, 2017, at 12:15 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think if you bundled all the media on one 5-tuple and had QUIC on another, the core NAT exhaustion problem would not be that bad. 

It would be twice as bad :-) When creating the offer, the device that creates it does not know if it will be getting QUIC based stuff or not so you want to include both in the offer. For the same reason we don't want to gather two ports for RTC and RTCP, I think we will want to run both on same port. I think google's data showed that nat traversal success rates were worse when using two ports instead of one. 

So my preference would be to be able to multiplex WebRTC using QUIC and and WebRTC not using QUIC on the same port.