IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Wed, 14 September 2011 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@vidyo.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 74DED21F8CBC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Ki8c6j-knLap for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (mxout.myoutlookonline.com [64.95.72.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9224E21F8B90 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01E24553BD3; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:46:47 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at mail.lan
Received: from HUB016.mail.lan (unknown [10.110.2.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00BAD553AF2; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:46:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BE235.mail.lan ([10.110.32.235]) by HUB016.mail.lan ([10.110.17.16]) with mapi; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:45:47 -0400
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:45:47 -0400
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive
Thread-Index: Acxyw30r82gF7xzoSe2t1rt6OG8s+wAA6iNwAABiKWAACPIQoA==
Message-ID: <C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC8230339CA72C234@BE235.mail.lan>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB21D@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206648CB0@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB264@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB264@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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive
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, 14 Sep 2011 14:44:40 -0000

Christer Holmberg writes:
> Well, it depends on the amount of outgoing media traffic, but in cases where you only receive media you would still need to send keep-alives.

Remember, RTCWeb is (probably) mandating RTP/RTCP mux.  I'd need to do some math to be certain, but I'm pretty sure that in almost all normal circumstances, the RTCP regular reporting interval should be significantly smaller than the STUN keepalive interval.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email