Re: [rtcweb] Another approach to forking...
Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 23 September 2011 13:28 UTC
Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 33BE721F8C3C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.418, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_25=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 ZXuX9ULXPbG0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9510E21F8B92 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743A139E112; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:30:55 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VwHAyaybIAqE; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:30:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (62-20-124-50.customer.telia.com [62.20.124.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EEE439E0C4; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:30:54 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E7C8A0D.2010307@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:30:53 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
References: <4E7C8277.9000902@alvestrand.no> <2DB2EECF-82F3-4D36-AD17-6891CDAACBBF@acmepacket.com>
In-Reply-To: <2DB2EECF-82F3-4D36-AD17-6891CDAACBBF@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Another approach to forking...
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: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:28:23 -0000
On 09/23/11 15:25, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > On Sep 23, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > >> Just to confuse the forking issue still further: >> >> If the APIs remain as they are today, a JS application that wants to support forking can do the following: >> >> - Create a PeerConnection >> - Cause it to generate an SDP blob ("SDP OFFER") >> - Send that SDP blob out to be forked >> - Throw away the PeerConnection >> - As the answers come back, for each answer: >> - Create a new PeerConnection >> - Take out the SDP blob, put "SDP OFFER" at the top, and give it to the PeerConnection > By this you mean take the answer and make it appear as an offer to PeerConn, right? > > >> - Throw away the generated "SDP ANSWER" > But wouldn't the new PeerConn's be creating new ICE ufrag/passwords that won't match the one it created in the original PeerConn's offer, and thus not be able to successfully negotiate ICE with the peer(s)? > > And doesn't PeerConn create/allocate the IP:ports used for MediaStreams? If so, each new PeerConn would also presumably be using a new UDP listen port and break this. Oops. There was something I'd forgotten. You're right - it won't work unless we create PeerConnections from the initial PeerConnection so that they can clone the ICE data and share the port. Back to the drawing board. Thanks! (in a previous API discussion I suggested a PeerConnectionFactory class.... nobody liked it at the time...)
- [rtcweb] Another approach to forking... Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Another approach to forking... Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Another approach to forking... Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Another approach to forking... Randell Jesup