IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Why requiring pre-announcement of SSRCs is a problem for conferencing ( Was: New Version Notification for draft-uberti-rtcweb-plan-00.txt )

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Thu, 30 May 2013 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 85A2121F9052 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 12:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.428
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, 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 QOzknkt5Zh5V for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 12:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F7C221F911B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2013 12:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=667; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369942143; x=1371151743; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=LuW5syfdRf7BDfKnxHca2zQsOvAhLiTUYVUI5UWNzhk=; b=gXeVK64keu+Lb6ScfjcXqxJRmJNO7DYHp0eJd6bJUWVYs23ib5TMXDuZ VlHeDcZ4+X225oIUlQZ5dvPWdHagiu+Jwhp3M9gB3U3U29U5BFhR5wdI3 CnI2iRFKw5Ms20cO9MmWOp5jyT/MUvBDI5/OYwjWWFmjACtyKop3frlNN w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApUFAEKnp1GtJXG//2dsb2JhbABZgwkwQ4IxvyN+FnSCIwEBAQMBaA8CBQsCAQgOFBkLMiUCBA4FCId/Bge7V41qfwIxB4J2YQOIaJp2AYUfgViBN3IBAX02
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,772,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="216980515"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 May 2013 19:29:03 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4UJT2xu008500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 May 2013 19:29:02 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.36]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 30 May 2013 14:29:02 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Why requiring pre-announcement of SSRCs is a problem for conferencing ( Was: New Version Notification for draft-uberti-rtcweb-plan-00.txt )
Thread-Index: AQHOXWvwcN6zFOJ3ZUmLbzKeS3jk2Q==
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 19:28:04 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB113524CC1@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <20130503054601.4639.64651.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>, <CALe60zAi_Lx3QFCbBQ5aPNkgorJAff0E79jkpbQX1Qt3wf2bzg@mail.gmail.com>, <CAOJ7v-1Wk6u7XiYrNVmoqr5Jisu2WRvZpte7hQTOiP8YHUc6hg@mail.gmail.com>, <008701ce4b21$a0997aa0$e1cc6fe0$@gmail.com>, <BLU169-W108D56DF61B85814543873C93BA0@phx.gbl>, <518AAAF2.5000207@alum.mit.edu>, <CA+9kkMBw4+kXAv6qLCcmGLwMxAqR6P-Tk8dm-ardv_jihHx0Hw@mail.gmail.com>, <9E563BDA-C336-4FB8-B11A-A2DC40C672C1@iii.ca>, <CA+9kkMC-NnF+VugBOZNhY4-Cz1tqJA44WSF9dg45g4GCWxkh-g@mail.gmail.com>, <518D6C76.5060606@alum.mit.edu>, <CAHBDyN6xYor-XWnLEkufoQPYrDc+KurrM0m3HBTqLXqNkPtDkQ@mail.gmail.com> <BLU169-W82D3FCC3246D6D878FA44E93A00@phx.gbl> <5191F948.3040402@ericsson.com> <51920280.3080308@jitsi.org> <519223A0.1040908@ericsson.com> <5192947F.90206@jitsi.org>
In-Reply-To: <5192947F.90206@jitsi.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <0E63FE2FF7B9BA42B1506C87399269D4@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Why requiring pre-announcement of SSRCs is a problem for conferencing ( Was: New Version Notification for draft-uberti-rtcweb-plan-00.txt )
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: Thu, 30 May 2013 19:29:08 -0000

On May 14, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:

> The issue that I am referring to (I describe this in an earlier mail to
> Harald here http://goo.gl/M8NbQ ) is that of a conference based on an
> RTP translator. It's basically what we do in Jitsi Videobridge.

Many deployments use a mixer instead of a translator from an RTP point of view. I understand at the media level you would not decode / encode or mix the media but at the RTP layer the bridge could have it's own SSRC and put the SSRC of the original sender in the CSRC. 

Any reason you choose a translator over a mixer when building a conferencing fencing bridge?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email