Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive

Randell Jesup <> Wed, 14 September 2011 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D1121F8B04 for <>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X-JrgmdYQvfm for <>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C78D21F8AF5 for <>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1R3r1L-0006hI-2W for; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:05:03 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:04:26 -0700
From: Randell Jesup <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC8230339CA72C234@BE235.mail.lan>
In-Reply-To: <C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC8230339CA72C234@BE235.mail.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:02:54 -0000

On 9/14/2011 7:45 AM, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
> 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.

Agreed; I think it would require a bizarre session setup (RR=0) to force 
the RTCP interval out far enough to cause problems.  (Don't forget to 
include the +- 50% in the calculation.)

RFC 3556:

       o  If RR is zero, then the proportion of participants that are
          senders can never be greater than RS/(RS+RR), and therefore
          non-senders never get any RTCP bandwidth independent of the
          number of senders.

Obviously, RR values near 0 could also cause a problem.  A statement 
about not using RR values that would result in RTCP intervals greater 
than N should be enough I think.

BTW: Have we mandated that RTP & RTCP be muxed always to all 
destinations, or that it must be supported and offered?  If you're 
talking to a legacy device that doesn't mux, what happens?

Randell Jesup