[rtcweb] Multiplexing using the same port number for multiple media descritions

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Tue, 30 August 2011 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55E3E21F8C0F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 04:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.958
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.958 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.560, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 KqYU4qcQbFhi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 04:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422E821F8C08 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 04:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-f6-4e5cc7bc926b
Received: from esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 7C.64.20773.CB7CC5E4; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:21:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.250]) by esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.81]) with mapi; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:21:32 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:21:31 +0200
Thread-Topic: Multiplexing using the same port number for multiple media descritions
Thread-Index: AcxnBvfg9PP/jvYvTPutafgqZ/L8lg==
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233D64F47@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233D64F47ESESSCMS0356e_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [rtcweb] Multiplexing using the same port number for multiple media descritions
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:20:07 -0000

Hi,

One possible alternative solution for SDP multiplex negotiation could be based on the assumption of using the same port number in multiple SDP m- lines (yes, I know SDP does not allow it, and I will come back to that).

Something like:

SDP offer:

m=audio 10000 ...
a=rtpmap ...
a=rtpmap ...
m=video 10000 ...
a=rtpmap ...
a=rtpmap ...


SDP answer (multiplex supported/accepted):

m=audio 20000 ...
a=rtpmap ...
a=rtpmap ...
m=video 20000 ...
a=rtpmap ...
a=rtpmap ...


SDP answer (multiplex not-supported/rejected):

m=audio 20000 ...
a=rtpmap ...
a=rtpmap ...
m=video 30000 ...
a=rtpmap ...
a=rtpmap ...



MAYBE there is also a need to use some kind of grouping, in which case it could look something like (borrowing some terminology from Harald):



SDP offer:

a=group:TOGETHER foo bar
m=audio 10000 ...
a=mid:foo
a=rtpmap ...
a=rtpmap ...
m=video 10000 ...
a=mid:bar
a=rtpmap ...
a=rtpmap ...


SDP answer (multiplex supported/accepted):

m=audio 20000 ...
a=rtpmap ...
a=rtpmap ...
a=mid:foo
m=video 20000 ...
a=mid:bar
a=rtpmap ...
a=rtpmap ...


SDP answer (multiplex not-supported/rejected):

m=audio 20000 ...
a=rtpmap ...
a=rtpmap ...
m=video 30000 ...
a=rtpmap ...
a=rtpmap ...


An ISSUE with this solution is of course that SDP does not allow for it.

However, we could always say that browsers must support it, in which case it should work fine in direct browser-to-browser cases.


When interworking with legacy, I guess two things can happen:

1. The offer is acctepted, with different port number in the answer, and multiplex won't be used (see example above)

2. The offer is rejected. In this case, the fallback would be that the browser sends a new offer, with different port numbers, and multiplex won't be used.

Regards,

Christer