Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less applications
Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Wed, 21 September 2011 20:31 UTC
Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 8FBE721F8BBD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 eC60BWLPdgvl for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from anchor-msapost-2.mail.demon.net (anchor-msapost-2.mail.demon.net [195.173.77.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B021521F8BBC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from starkperkins.demon.co.uk ([80.176.158.71] helo=[192.168.0.30]) by anchor-post-2.mail.demon.net with esmtpsa (AUTH csperkins-dwh) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) id 1R6TUs-0006MN-jw; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:34:22 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <68121E70-4363-47F8-8761-23728C56D003@acmepacket.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:34:20 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9348BF4A-8674-4888-9DDC-C734FB935A28@csperkins.org>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB21D@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB2F0@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206648D0F@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB3E5@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <4E70D2E6.1000809@alvestrand.no> <CABcZeBORi5NLSsztnMfkwL43p9oKG9mi6e1WWOaiafAO_DpTVg@mail.gmail.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233D45FA3@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBO9hUSYZhLrcfbaK9HLGXq-q1EvqWOy6-gAN5xom6Z2-A@mail.gmail.com> <092401cc749b$8fd64940$af82dbc0$@com> <CABcZeBPgRD6kb2gg=m9NckSa1wrzwzJS6527nYqFG34b0cjfgQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E765E4A.3050801@alvestrand.no> <7532C74D-D0D7-474D-80C7-61C07E9290AA@edvina.net> <2B265ADC-44C3-48CC-95A6-B90ED6E42FA7@acme packet.com> <7D7982AF-7478-4AFD-9F39-ED04A43FEF53@edvina.net> <673BCA71-B624-4DCA-B681-7012E6F9D202@acmepacket.com> <4E799E18.30000@ericsson.com> <855B9078-A81F-45D9-B12F-46CC46C15B60@acmepacket.com> <4E79 D5DF.4050402@ericsson.com> <68121E70-4363-47F8-8761-23728C56D003@acmepacket.com>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less applications
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, 21 Sep 2011 20:31:54 -0000
On 21 Sep 2011, at 20:30, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > On Sep 21, 2011, at 8:17 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: >> On 2011-09-21 11:02, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: >>> On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:19 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: >>>> If I interpret this correctly, you are arguing that an RTCWEB >>>> implementation shall support a remote end-point that doesn't >>>> support RTCP. >>> >>> Yes, although we could make that allowance/exception for audio only - in fact, G.711 only if it comes down to it. >> >> Well, I don't know if we can argue that one past the Transport Area >> Director? > > Hmmm… how about by pointing out this is RTP over UDP and not TCP, and that we're following RFC 3550, which does not mandate reception of RTCP to continue the session? I would think a Transport Area AD would know how UDP works. ;) > > >> I know I can argue 400 bps as an acceptable non congestion >> controlled rate. And that is because that is the equivalent of a full >> backed off TCP connection that sends one full Ethernet frame every 30 >> seconds. We probably can argue 4kbps also as an acceptable rate. But >> getting to the next magnitude is more problematic, especially in the >> light that there still exist a reasonable large number of access links >> around the world that don't have more than a few 10kbps in capacity. > > Then the call quality will suck and the user will hang up. > > BTW, are you suggesting that even with G.711, that rtcweb do some form of congestion control based on the RTCP packets? At that point we're not even talking about RTP/AVP for PCMU/PCMA then are we? This is some new profile, not AVP. Well, the AVP spec [RFC3551, page 5] does say: If best-effort service is being used, RTP receivers SHOULD monitor packet loss to ensure that the packet loss rate is within acceptable parameters. Packet loss is considered acceptable if a TCP flow across the same network path and experiencing the same network conditions would achieve an average throughput, measured on a reasonable timescale, that is not less than the RTP flow is achieving. This condition can be satisfied by implementing congestion control mechanisms to adapt the transmission rate (or the number of layers subscribed for a layered multicast session), or by arranging for a receiver to leave the session if the loss rate is unacceptably high. The comparison to TCP cannot be specified exactly, but is intended as an "order-of-magnitude" comparison in timescale and throughput. The timescale on which TCP throughput is measured is the round- trip time of the connection. In essence, this requirement states that it is not acceptable to deploy an application (using RTP or any other transport protocol) on the best-effort Internet which consumes bandwidth arbitrarily and does not compete fairly with TCP within an order of magnitude. -- Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/
- [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive sisalem
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Göran Eriksson AP
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Magnus Westerlund
- [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for keep… Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive Michael Tüxen
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for … Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive - RTCP-less appl… Iñaki Baz Castillo