Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 20, 2011, at 7:24 , Bernard Aboba wrote:

> 
> > 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.  

Agree - but I think we need to fix that regardless of what we decide with this.