Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments
"Karl Stahl" <karl.stahl@intertex.se> Thu, 13 March 2014 07:31 UTC
Return-Path: <karl.stahl@intertex.se>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B461B1A03BD; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.801
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1] autolearn=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 BZdFj11124dT; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.it-norr.com (smtp.it-norr.com [80.244.64.160]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510681A0155; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([95.199.19.223]) by smtp.it-norr.com (Telecom3 SMTP service) with ASMTP id 201403130830476992; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:30:47 +0100
From: Karl Stahl <karl.stahl@intertex.se>
To: 'Harald Alvestrand' <harald@alvestrand.no>, 'Colin Perkins' <csp@csperkins.org>
References: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11667BBA0@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <5238446D.8050700@ericsson.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCF581@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <07a601ceb64e$5caaba00$16002e00$@stahl@intertex.se> <07b001ceb65f$ce3f0cf0$6abd26d0$@stahl@intertex.se> <07e401ceb713$bef87a60$3ce96f20$@stahl@intertex.se> <524AB730.7040809@ericsson.com> <00b001cebfc1$ba8e89e0$2fab9da0$@stahl@intertex.se> <525272E8.5050300@ericsson.com> <050801cec3f6$6172aec0$24580c40$@stahl@intertex.se> <5253E5EB.8030608@alvestrand.no> <02bf01cecf34$35e174a0$a1a45de0$@stahl@intertex.se> <04dd01cf31ad$0fe62d00$2fb28700$@stahl@intertex.se> <580B467D-4679-4DE1-96DE-CA37DE755563@csperkins.org> <052e01cf31cb$5311a0a0$f934e1e0$@stahl@intertex.se> <D06C438A-8894-402C-AE9F-D7787ECF77B3@csperkins.org> <530D641F.6010504@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <530D641F.6010504@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:30:47 +0100
Message-ID: <021e01cf3e8e$2752ce10$75f86a30$@stahl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_021F_01CF3E96.89173610"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac8y8zez8ntJdzT0S+yXIDUU2yAcYwJrcLfg
Content-Language: sv
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/D--6f01PvFCrr-YxpV6rbDTUDE8
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, tram@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 13 Mar 2014 07:31:07 -0000
Hi Harald, The answer to your question 26 of February: > Karl, what on Earth does TRAM milestone 3 have to do with whatever it is you're proposing? TRAM milestone 3 is: Sep 2014 - Send new proposed standard TURN server discovery mechanism for enterprises and ISPs to IESG > There's no (zero, nada, none) mention of QoS within that charter. --- I didnt mention QoS (*I want the QoS methods out!*), in my protest/request http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00304.html It must be a clear objective of the TRAM WG that ISPs/NSPs are allowed and encouraged to route quality demanding WebRTC media into their IP pipes that are capable of transporting real-time traffic without quality issues, using TURN servers. The subject from the TRAM mailing initiation spells out: *Milestone 3: TURN server auto-discovery mechanism for enterprise and ISPs* The TRAM WG must assure that TURN servers offered by ISPs/NSPs can be used for the above purpose. (The objective of the TRAM WG milestone 3 is *not only* to resolve restrictive enterprise NAT/firewall traversal problem using TURN servers.) However, it is a way of "Interfacing to QoS", A level 3-5 IP/IETF/WebRTC-thing how to interface to lower level's QoS-stuff, which I now have started under <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00331.html> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00331.html The way to "Interfacing to QoS", A level 3-5 IP/IETF/WebRTC-thing how to interface to lower level's QoS-stuff You were September 20 actually the first to answer my request for a DHCP provided turn server address (which I withdraw in favor of the anycast method, which is highly preferable): http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg08920.html There I said: >There are several reasons for a network service provider to supply a TURN server as part of his offered access: - to keep media paths short, specifically not sending media outside its own network to some distant application provided TURN server - to support mobility, i.e. you may want to move from a LAN with a configured TURN server to accessing via WiFi or 3G/4G OTT channels - to offer a media path with better quality (than best effort data traffic). Getting a WebRTC-ready access and we can look forward to telepresence for everyone. I dont really see anyone objecting to those objectives, and I dont think you do either. The Anycast method were suggested October 22 (without further discussions) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09128.html and thereafter brought into TRAM WG list February 8 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00132.html It took me some time to find the relevant emails from the discussions in September and October which ended up with my entry to the [tram]-list February 8, which is copied in full below, where I still say it was 95% ready (There are a few relevant points from Simon that I will address later). Thereafter, the QoS diversion and confusion started around February 12th in what looks to me as effort to make it a Mission Impossible. I dont know how the TRAM WG was created, but I thought Milestrone 3 was a result of Cullens. See next email in response to Cullens questions and requests. /Karl Footnote: [1] I think both you (Harald) and Cullen, are good, have the best intentions and integrity, but no one of us have infinite memory capacity (especially when the VP8/H.264 flooding came in between). I only learned by accident that the TRAM WG was in progress at the November WebRTC conference and should handle the Auto Discovery of TURN-servers. Från: Karl Stahl [mailto:karl.stahl@intertex.se] Skickat: den 8 februari 2014 14:11 Till: 'tram@ietf.org'; 'tireddy@icisco.com'; 'Simon Perreault' Ämne: [tram] Milestone 3: TURN server auto-discovery mechanism for enterprise and ISPs Karl from Ingate and Intertex just added himself to this list for exactly the purpose of the subject of Milestone 3 above I welcome this initiative that I saw yesterday after being reminded by China Mobile Research Institute who had seen the previous October discussion on the WebRTC-list, parts of which are inserted below. Large carriers have also expressed the importance of this milestone. -------------------- We are working on this draft, will publish it next week. -Tiru. Great, please consider the input and suggestions below: > -----Original Message----- > From: tram [ <mailto:tram-bounces> mailto:tram-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 7:58 PM > To: tram at ietf.org > Subject: [tram] Milestone 3: TURN server auto-discovery mechanism for > enterprise and ISPs > > Enterprises or ISPs wishing to provide > their own TURN server, in an attempt to reduce so-called "triangle routing", > need a new auto-discovery mechanism. --- There are more reasons heard for auto-discovery of a network provided TURN server: - NSPs (Network Service Providers) want to provide a path where the bandwidth of WebRTC is better coped with. - NSPs or Enterprises want to offer an Internet access quality pipe for prioritized RTC (Real Time Communication) traffic. - Enterprises having restrictive firewalls, want to provide a UDP-path for WebRTC and possibly also for better quality where RTC do not compete with data traffic. - Mobility; It is common to move from a LAN to accessing via WiFi or 3G/4G OTT channels, all should be able to automatically offer their own optimal TURN server - Note that to achieve some of the above points, TURN must be favored over STUN to enforce that the TURN-path actually is used. (The Anycast method suggested below, automatically does this.) -- In my view, a TURN server is the network providers responsibility to provide (just like the IP address, the default gateway, the DNS etc.) rather than the application providers. Our current Internet accesses may not cope with or be optimized for WebRTC usage The NSP (or Enterprise LAN administrator) should then be able to fix the access (here by offering a TURN server). > IMHO this is also a top-priority milestone. We need to quickly have a > mechanism that people can implement in WebRTC browsers now, while > there is still frenetic development happening. --- Agree I don't foresee actual server- > side deployment happening quickly though. But as soon as clients are ready, > any ISP or enterprise can deploy and immediately benefit. - There is a definitive interest among forward SPs already, especially carriers owning the network. (They have learned that their networks (especially mobile) seem to become data crowded no matter how much bandwidth they invest in.) > I imagine that the solution will be fairly simple, spec- and implementation- > wise. --- Agree that such solution should and could be found, but it is not obvious. Below you find 3 proposals (initiated by me or colleagues, where I see flaws in the two first and now only suggest the third (the Anycast mechanism). From below: - 1st: withdraw my suggestion to use DHCP to find a network provider offered TURN server in favor of the DNS-Based Service Discovery method (inserted last below). The major problem with the DHCP usage was that you then also have to do something similar for: RA - Router Advertisement - in IPv6, addition to the IPCP protocol for PPPoE and something for the mobile OTT channel wherever DHCP is NOT the method to give you an IP address. (There were also concerns whether OSs actually supports forwards such extended DHCP information for the browser to use.) - 2nd Reverse DNS-Based Service Discovery method: Justin Uberti pointed out: How does this get bootstrapped? That is, how is the STUN server found? [Karl] Oops, that got lost when leaving the DHCP track, and is a problem when using DNS discovery. (There were also hesitations of having to provision this special reverse DNS for every access.) - 3rd The Anycast method below I see no problem It also has the advantage of encouraging (but not requiring) the STUN/TURN to be built in the default gateway or NAT/firewall/access router itself, with a second interface to a public IP address on the WAN side. (Current volume deployed, low cost NSP triple play modems usually have a quality assured level 2 or level 3 WAN pipe for just voice (and another for IPTV) The anycast discovered TURN-server can be the access gateway to such quality pipe for WebRTC media, in a single NSP provided CPE, scaling from residential and up.) So I think we can finish this very quickly once we have a candidate > draft. We just need authors. So I would target not long after Toronto. > > Simon WEB BROWSER BEHAVIOUR: Network provided TURN servers will not appear over night, applications may for long provide a TURN server address, and there are exceptions where the TURN server address is preferred to be manually configured. It is previously suggested, and to some extent discussed, that the WebRTC browser should select the TURN server to use in the following priority order, where ICE would assure that you get some connectivity if several candidates are found and needs to be tested: 1) TURN server address configured in the browser by the user (special cases, normally not used, but handy for testing) 2) TURN server address configured by the network administrator via an admin policy template or a WPAD method as mentioned below 3) TURN server address auto-discovered by the mechanism discussed here 4) TURN server address being supplied by the web application With a good step 3), step 2) becomes obsolete since the network administrator e.g. simply can set a route in the enterprise firewall to use the Anycast mechanism instead. Even if the need for auto-discovery of the TURN server comes from WebRTC usage, a general mechanism that also can be used by SIP clients (and other protocols using TURN via ICE) is preferable. The anycast method has no application dependence, but e.g. WPAD has (a SIP Client typically does not have the luxury of a JS engine ) /Karl Från: tram [mailto:tram-bounces@ietf.org] För Harald Alvestrand Skickat: den 26 februari 2014 04:49 Till: Colin Perkins; Karl Stahl Kopia: Magnus Westerlund; rtcweb@ietf.org; tram@ietf.org Ämne: Re: [tram] [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments Karl, what on Earth does TRAM milestone 3 have to do with whatever it is you're proposing? TRAM milestone 3 is: Sep 2014 - Send new proposed standard TURN server discovery mechanism for enterprises and ISPs to IESG There's no (zero, nada, none) mention of QoS within that charter.
- [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-… Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-… Bernard Aboba
- [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC of dr… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Bernard Aboba
- [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Marc Abrams
- [rtcweb] [mmusic] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-c… Karl Stahl
- [rtcweb] [mmusic] TURN server address via DHCP, W… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Marc Abrams
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-… Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] [mmusic] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-u… Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-… Chenxin (Xin)
- Re: [rtcweb] additional ICE info Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-… Chenxin (Xin)
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] additional ICE info Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] additional ICE info Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] additional ICE info Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-… Chenxin (Xin)
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- [rtcweb] [mmusic] TURN server address via DHCP, W… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] [mmusic] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-u… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Saverio Vardaro
- Re: [rtcweb] additional ICE info Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] [mmusic] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-u… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] [mmusic] TURN server address via DHC… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] [mmusic] TURN server address via DHC… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] [mmusic] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-u… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] [mmusic] TURN server address via DHC… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] [mmusic] TURN server address via DHC… cb.list6
- [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV: [m… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC o… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] [mmusic] TURN server address via DHC… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] [mmusic] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-u… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] [mmusic] TURN server address via DHC… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… BeckW
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… BeckW
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… BeckW
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… Lee, Richard FTC
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… BeckW
- Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV… Karl Stahl
- [rtcweb] [mmusic] Anycast discovery, Was TURN ser… Karl Stahl
- [rtcweb] [avtext] Payload Types assignments was R… Karl Stahl
- [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments Karl Stahl