IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Network times . was SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb

Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> Thu, 02 May 2013 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@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 DE35E21F8F41 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2013 16:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 0sr58JU38gKo for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2013 16:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E28521F8F2F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 May 2013 16:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7931; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1367538053; x=1368747653; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=8e+TPFE6IBzK1UmQDto3H0NS5ua8iUi3HrZ9oRu0om8=; b=TB+nqXNuHtIpSL+3XiynkVwwwAZkU8VDIXLrJXF/l6DFsAo+xh07usph 7SmNiGtR4B8144u0e6AwK0DbNtxWn1MgEw57rA6jleJkWFxnwrcrqprou U6Y/DPGRX9WxKATbhLxdv95j+PW4BtY0Fmp9P6WqgfDDv91gOlXmctUY3 s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,599,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="80135085"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 May 2013 23:40:53 +0000
Received: from [10.156.16.58] ([10.156.16.58]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r42NepiN010750; Thu, 2 May 2013 23:40:51 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F8D6B54D-7E71-4432-90C5-0A24E14F5A37"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <51827CAD.3000600@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 16:40:51 -0700
Message-Id: <8F49EA56-6BB2-492F-A93F-FEA71EFA9856@cisco.com>
References: <3FA2E46D-C98E-4FC0-9F1D-AD595A861CE1@iii.ca> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF0E6C04AF@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CAErhfrx6xi7rNmc6CZc5iyKiYv+oZbi3sBa5QywB7dUKtms2Aw@mail.gmail.com> <C643F355C8D33C48B983F1C1EA702A450B49EA@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <4AA3A95D6033ED488F8AE4E45F47448742B13620@WABOTH9MSGUSR8B.ITServices.sbc.com> <CALiegfmpZZigigQtaadsXup6VfWgJAF8--TJpbUwSJMmar7fRA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxv2d2DemnjHQdB8XU8NKfK-Uu913DLPq9JUT4z9kvFfTQ@mail.gmail.com> <829F9A35-5F23-4A0F-9831-80478F70965E@phonefromhere.com> <517E2F6A.30905@alvestrand.no> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1134B0090@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <5180f8ac.65f3440a.7deb.fffffeeaSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAOJ7v-1K6B6GTBShbwcE2FZWtL+Hm_XLMS_cRvMJejx8gUtieg@mail.gmail.com> <51815b69.e3e8440a.460a.002eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <51823508.8090305@gm ail.com> <5182622e.2a78980a.697f.ffffb5e9SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <51827CAD.3000600@gmail.com>
To: miconda@gmail.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: "'Cullen Jennings (fluffy)'" <fluffy@cisco.com>, rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Network times . was SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb
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, 02 May 2013 23:40:57 -0000

On May 2, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On 5/2/13 2:45 PM, Karl Stahl wrote:
>> Rtp relays are fast routing devices that should not add even 1 ms to the delay.
> 
> By the 'routing device' do you mean some hardware based packet forwarding (e.g, done in the ethernet card) or an application doing the forwarding in user space?
> 
>> At least our (Ingates) SBCs add no significant delay when carrying SIP media.
>>  
>> But if there is a TURN server on the other side of the earth, you can get additional delays of course.
> The point I wanted to make was that any new technology should not be designed for ideal cases, also not for worst cases, but to satisfy the majority of the possible users.

https://developers.google.com/talk/libjingle/important_concepts#connections, 
  "This is because the data pathway can be either a direct connection (92% 
    of connection attempts can take place directly) or through a relay server 
    (8% of connection attempts require an intermediary relay server)." 

-d



> 
> Daniel
> 
> -- 
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
> http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> Kamailio Advanced Training, San Francisco, USA - June 24-27, 2013
>   * http://asipto.com/u/katu *
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email