IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Karl Stahl" <karl.stahl@intertex.se> Thu, 02 May 2013 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <karl.stahl@intertex.se>
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 7E89B21F96C5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2013 05:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
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 7O8KmZ7B3pps for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2013 05:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.it-norr.com (smtp.it-norr.com [80.244.64.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BADD121F9666 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 May 2013 05:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([79.136.100.83]) by smtp.it-norr.com (Telecom3 SMTP service) with ASMTP id NRW40551; Thu, 02 May 2013 14:46:51 +0200
From: Karl Stahl <karl.stahl@intertex.se>
To: miconda@gmail.com, 'Justin Uberti' <juberti@google.com>
References: <3FA2E46D-C98E-4FC0-9F1D-AD595A861CE1@iii.ca> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A48416281FDB@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F3BB8FAF7@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <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>
In-Reply-To: <51823508.8090305@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 14:45:29 +0200
Message-ID: <00cc01ce4733$1ffa61d0$5fef2570$@stahl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CD_01CE4743.E38331D0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac5HGWCO3BNTEN6eQkuH5ONCf5bdxAAEcuhg
Content-Language: sv
X-Spam-IndexStatus: 0
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 12:55:16 -0000

Rtp relays are fast routing devices that should not add even 1 ms to the
delay. 

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 250 ms were Cullen’s pings, not RTP measurements, but the delay should
be about the same.

 

/Karl

 

Från: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:miconda@gmail.com] 
Skickat: den 2 maj 2013 11:43
Till: Karl Stahl; 'Justin Uberti'
Kopia: 'Cullen Jennings (fluffy)'; rtcweb@ietf.org
Ämne: Re: [rtcweb] Network times . was SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568)
and RTCWeb

 

 

On 5/1/13 8:13 PM, Karl Stahl wrote:

RTT is round trip time, isn’t it? Our 250 ms was just one way – so same
finding.

Were these measurements involving rtp relays, or just point to point
transmissions?

Considering the amount of symmetric nat firewalls, even with ICE, a relevant
number of RTC sessions will require a public relay, TURN server or similar
(unless everyone will be on IPv6 at the time of production WebRTC
deployments, which seems to have a chance looking at some debates or
issues/patents related to several WebRTC decisions :-) ).

As a new technology cannot satisfy everyone, but if it does not work good
enough for majority, it will end up in a series of patches that will
complicate everything (remember sip-nat relation). It is easier to digest
and sell improvements brought by future extensions (e.g., alternative
session setup mechanism for better security) than specifications doing
actually downgrades.

Cheers,
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 *

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email