Re: [rtcweb] How to multiplex between peers

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Wed, 20 July 2011 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 7D35621F865F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LDtW37DpSKBz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from anchor-msapost-2.mail.demon.net (anchor-msapost-2.mail.demon.net [195.173.77.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA3D21F863A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from starkperkins.demon.co.uk ([80.176.158.71] helo=[192.168.0.26]) by anchor-post-2.mail.demon.net with esmtpsa (AUTH csperkins-dwh) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) id 1QjfIW-0006no-l9; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:31:20 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <38DF8F00ABAB77498A75469448CB081B3AE69BEBC4@BE235.mail.lan>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:31:12 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DB9A2414-CE23-4F6E-811D-DEEBAF6E0280@csperkins.org>
References: <4E259EAD.3060505@ericsson.com> <FAE78F7C-8C51-41C4-B3D7-6497396E12A5@cisco.com> <4E26C5CF.1080007@ericsson.com> <BLU152-W54BE1A03753680FF0094C4934C0@phx.gbl> <CAOJ7v-2kwiCipJSHmNT9GuGJJzEjPV-X00TLnf-LwbsJ1ADwDw@mail.gmail.com> <896BDC4C-849C-4553-89C8-7EFEF9FFEC6B@skype.net> <38DF8F00ABAB77498A75469448CB081B3AE69BEBC4@BE235.mail.lan>
To: Bala Pitchandi <Bala@vidyo.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] How to multiplex between peers
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: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:31:22 -0000

Except that it doesn't work in all cases: please read the discussion in draft-perkins-rtpweb-rtp-usage-02. You may argue that you don't think the breakage is important, but there *is* breakage in doing this, and it is not backwards compatible.

Colin


On 20 Jul 2011, at 21:57, Bala Pitchandi wrote:
> +1 for sending audio & video (and any other type of media, for that matter) on a single RTP session. With RTCP mux, that means all media can be sent on a single UDP port. 
> 
> -- Bala
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:51 PM
> To: Justin Uberti
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] How to multiplex between peers
> 
> 
> On Jul 20, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> 
>> 
>> This is where I've ended up on this topic. We can easily multiplex multiple RTP sources (of the same type) over a single RTP session using SSRC. We can also mux RTCP over the RTP session using RTCP mux. So, for an arbitrary video call, we have just 2 RTP sessions/NAT bindings. 
>> 
>> Is it worth going the extra mile to get down to 1 in v1.0, given the lack of consensus that exists right now? Is there even a compelling argument to do so?
> 
> Yes and yes.
> 
> I really can't understand why, if we can multiplex 3 totally different types of video streams over the same RTP session using SSRC (with wildly different bit-rates, inter-packet times, etc.) we can't also multiplex audio and video. Not a single argument that has been presented has convinced me, and getting from 2 to 1 is a *50%* reduction in NAT port utilization. (And a significant reduction in the number of "strange" failure modes, where one traversal worked and the other didn't.)
> 
> Matthew Kaufman
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb



-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/