Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 20 July 2011 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 3BFDA21F86A2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.54
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oeuQcKFvgx1m for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s19.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s19.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E2621F863A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU152-W38 ([65.55.111.137]) by blu0-omc4-s19.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:24:26 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU152-W38359A17A67825B59CD5D0934C0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_be1e7d73-1113-40ee-8bd4-59bc1e85d987_"
X-Originating-IP: [98.203.198.61]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: fluffy@cisco.com, emcho@jitsi.org
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:24:25 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <62C71813-83B4-44D3-8E54-28262311CDB3@cisco.com>
References: <4E259484.20509@ericsson.com>, <37897D97-85A9-4B21-85C3-A7E9BE1EF3E7@cisco.com>, <4E26B742.6050606@jitsi.org>, <62C71813-83B4-44D3-8E54-28262311CDB3@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2011 14:24:26.0272 (UTC) FILETIME=[BA87CA00:01CC46E8]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!
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, 20 Jul 2011 14:24:27 -0000


> Ahh, I think we have come to the key issues here - perhaps I have not been explaining myself very well. So in your experience roughly how long does it take to set up a for two scenarios using ICE as is today. 
> 
> First scenario: I have two devices that want to set up a single audio stream and they each have the candidates from: local v4 IP address, v4 stun, v4 turn, local v6, turn v6. Obviously they could have a lot more but that seems like a reasonable starting point. 
> 
> Second scenario: same as first address wise but instead of a single audio stream they want to set up a single audio stream  to a conference bridge plus 7 video streams for the video from the 5 people on the bridge plus a presentation stream and stream of video from active speaker. I don't really care much about the scenario other than there are 8 streams being set up. But this type of scenario is becoming very common for multi party video chat as it allows you to see perhaps small versions of everyone plus a large version of active speaker. 
> 
> My experience is the answer to the first scenario is not as quick as you would like and the answer to how long the second takes is about 8 times longer than the first one. You might do a bit better than that depending on how clever your implementation is but it still a lot longer. 

[BA] Yes, that is correct.  However at the moment I'd characterize that as a "high quality problem", since it isn't even clear that the current WHATWG API can handle that case, due to glare and ICE timing issues.