Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 5/16/13 13:26, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> I don't believe your comment (or the RFCs you cite) reflect currently 
> deployed reality. 

I'm not sure how much design we need to do to accommodate out-of-spec 
implementations. I would be interested in knowing how pervasive this 
behavior actually is in deployments, since the proper handling of 
dynamic PTs has been well documented for nearly a decade.

> If the true limit at which one has to change allocation strategy were 
> to become 96, not 32, it actually strengthens my "falling off a cliff" 
> argument

And, to be clear, it's not a cliff. For any given session (without 
a=ssrc:), you have to allocate ceiling(streams/96) ports. It's not like 
you go from using one port to using 97 ports when you add the 97th 
stream. You go from one port to two, which will handle 192 streams.

And that's okay. As you approach 100 streams, I seriously doubt that 
port utilization is going to be the constraining factor in what your 
network can support.

/a