Re: [tram] [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments

["Karl Stahl" <[e-mail]>]

For the “mission to bring quality to real-time traffic over our best effort
Internet” I have started
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00331.html>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00331.html

[tram] [rtcweb] The way to "Interfacing to QoS", A level 3-5
IP/IETF/WebRTC-thing how to interface to lower level's QoS-stuff [1] [2]

 

Hi Colin,

 

Please see the just sent email to Pål and Magnus where I address your
concerns. 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11846.html

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11847.html

 

/Karl

 

Footnotes:

 

[1] Please do not divert or confuse this with QoS methods in themselves
(like diffserve, bandwidth reservation, congestion control etc.) This is the
interface from the application to the network level, where all networks
types should be able to use the traffic information for QoS methods relevant
to the particular network.

 

[2] Here it is about recreation of the idea/intention of the RTP payload
type (PT) header that is not available for the network level anymore, by
instead having the application/browser filling the RTP header extension with
relevant traffic info that all IP network types can use. Similar traffic
type marking is suggested for the data channel.

 

Från: Colin Perkins [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Skickat: den 26 februari 2014 00:49
Till: Karl Stahl
Kopia: [e-mail]; Magnus Westerlund; [e-mail]; Harald Alvestrand
Ämne: Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments

 

Karl,

 

I sympathise with your goal, but I really do not think RTP header extensions
are appropriate for this purpose.

 

Ignoring the semantic mismatch, in order to identify an RTP header
extension, you need access to the signalling data, and if you have access to
the signalling, you can signal the QoS parameters without using RTP. 

 

You state that only the payload is encrypted in SRTP. That is not
necessarily true. RTP header extensions can be encrypted when RFC 6904 is in
use, and rtcweb-rtp-usage draft recommends this be done in some cases. 

 

The signalling channel is also likely encrypted end-to-end in new
applications, so making it difficult to extract the information you need to
parse the RTP header extension, even if it is unencrypted. 

 

Besides these focussed issues, I would also urge you to consider the much
broader comments Magnus made. The QoS problem is broad, and a point solution
based on RTP header extensions - even if it were workable, which I doubt -
would address only a small part of the problem space.

 

 

 

Colin

 

 

 

 

On 25 Feb 2014, at 01:45, Karl Stahl <[e-mail]> wrote:

Colin,

 

If the below were the case, it would be “DPI guesswork” that I also advice
against. RTP doesn’t even have unique protocol header within UDP – it can
even be confused with other UDP payload. 

 

However, if the RTP is captured in a TURN-flow, as in TRAM Milestone 3, the
network point that this flow is directed to and can apply QoS methods
relevant to the network (which is not diffserve in Mobile OTT and Cable
Networks) has not a too difficult tasks. Linking each RTP-flow by its ID and
sequence number, and picking exactly the right traffic type and bandwidth
parameters is doable (see inline below, we at Ingate do it already)!

 

Also DiffServ DSCP-bits are seldom maintained crossing network boundaries,
thus carrying no relevant information at the receiving end, while the RTP
extension header remains unchanged end-to-end. In DSCP-bits, there is no
bandwidth requirement information when entering networks requiring
reservation. That is always (and dynamically set) available in the RTP
extension header for each packet.

 

And, I am sure you are aware of the difficulties of getting DSCP-bits
through OS sockets, which is even worse with multiple streams over the same
UDP-port

 

Further, defining the QoS RTP extension header as in RFC5285, does not in
anyway conflict with other RTP extension headers or DSCP transfer or
settings.

 

/Karl

 

Från: Colin Perkins [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Skickat: den 24 februari 2014 23:52
Till: Karl Stahl
Kopia: [e-mail]; Magnus Westerlund; [e-mail]; Harald Alvestrand
Ämne: Re: [rtcweb] [tram] Payload Types assignments

 

Karl,

 

I strongly disagree with this suggestion. An RTP header extension, located
at an unknown and variable offset into a packet that does not have a
well-defined magic number in the header, 

This is how to find the traffic info:

   The payload of the classifier header extension element can be encoded

   using either the one-byte or two-byte header defined in [rfc5285
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5285> ] and

   shown below in Figure 1 and 2 below.

 

      0                   1                   2                   3

      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     |  ID   | len=1 |   Namespace   |    Value      |    0 (pad)    |

     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 

             Figure 1: Classifier Using the One-Byte Header

 

      0                   1                   2                   3

      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     |      ID       |    len=2      |   Namespace   |    Value      |

     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 

 

             Figure 2: Classifier Using the Two-Byte Header

 

indicated using a dynamically assigned identifier that is conveyed in an
out-of-band 

--- It is the TURN flow!!! Requested by the ICE protocol for the specific
media to come!

and encrypted signalling channel, 

--- Only the payload is encrypted in SRTP – leaving id, seq no and header
ext to be used as intended!

--- Thus being the appropriate place…

is not an appropriate place to put QoS information that has to be processed
on a per-packet basis. 

If you want DiffServ, you know where to find it.

--- True, but if it cannot be used…

Colin

 

 

On 24 Feb 2014, at 22:09, Karl Stahl <[e-mail]> wrote:

I suggest to the RTCWEB WG that the below from the September and October
discussions on the relevant [rtcweb] [avtext] [mmusic] lists
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09129.html is
introduced into draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage for usage of RFC 5285, to allow:

 

(1) WebRTC applications to directly convey QoS related real-time traffic
info to the network at points where RTP flow is directed to by TRAM Milstone
3, to be used by *any network element implementing any suitable QoS methods
for the particular network* for 

(2) *all* WebRTC browsers *and* clients, under *all* OSs, and *all* current
and future IP network, to achieve best QoE 

(3) *without* having to force WebRTC into application specific networks
(such as IMS) instead of using the Internet (including OTT).

 

The only further activity required, is to call for ISPs’ to review whether
the traffic information transferred by RFC 5285 is sufficient for current
and future needs in their network as suggested in below repeated
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09129.html

<snip>

…two parameters (e.g. two bytes each) are encoded into the RTP header
extension:

 

A) The maximum bandwidth requirement: Two bytes could contain everything
from some bps for real-time text to Gbps for future 3D supersize
telepresence… on a logarithmic scale.

 

B) The quality characteristics for the stream, with the highest bit set to
1, we could allocate a bit each for quality type e.g:

Best Effort, Audio, Video, Supplemental Video, Gaming, Data, Delay
Insensitive (e.g. video streaming), Minimum Delay, Reliable Delivery,
Prioritize X, Variation Y, that could be combined as required to describe
the stream.

 

And with highest bit set to 0, there could instead be a number for special
usage that does not fit the general description of the individual bits.

</snip>

 

Then this could be assigned numbers to have an RFC in place.

 

With TRAM milestone 3 also place, 

market forces will drive ISPs and browser makers to implement just this,
without even having it MUST-established.

 

“Who does not want a “WebRTC-Ready” Internet access?” and

“Who wants to use Chrome, if Firefox, Internet Explorer or Safari comes with
much better QoE?” and vice versa.

 

Please see further emails soon following this one, for details and history.

 

/Karl

 

 

Från: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] För Karl
Stahl
Skickat: den 22 oktober 2013 16:37
Till: 'Harald Alvestrand'; [e-mail]; 'Magnus Westerlund'
Kopia: 'Colin Perkins'
Ämne: [rtcweb] [avtext] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV: [mmusic] WGLC
of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11

 

Harald, I mostly agree with the quality requirements of different real-time
traffic that the WebRTC browser/application may use. But rather than asking
the application, let's convey the bandwidth and priority requirements to the
network. Just like with the Payload type (that is hard to squeeze that
information into) it must be visible to the network (and not changed by the
network, like diffserv bits are). Such marking must also be available for
incoming traffic, which is especially important in RSVP type of networks,
that has to reserve bandwidth for it.  

 

There is actually a good way to show these needs to the network (without
using the PT, or diffserv bits, which aren’t sufficient anyway). 

 

Let's use the RTP header extension field that also is visible outside the
encrypted payload. A week ago came
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carlberg-avtext-classifier-00  that
outlines the usage of the extension field for classification of traffic!
This document does not yet outline what to put in there and how to encode it
though.

 

Today's http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10 discusses
other webrtc usages of the RTP header extension in 5.2 (there can be many
header extensions according to RFC 5285) and in 9 there is "WebRTC Use of
RTP: Future Extensions".

 

So, it looks obvious to use the RTP header extension to show the
characteristics and bandwidth requirements to the network. It should not
introduce any backward incompatibilities either.

 

Such marking is done in every RTP packet so it can be set individually for
each stream and could even be changed during a session (e.g. when limiting
the bandwidth based on RTCP feedback). RFC 5286 also specifies how RTP
extension header usage can be negotiated in SDP. I think this could be
easily done by the WebRTC browser for "all current and future needs" if
properly specified now.

 

I suggest that two parameters (e.g. two bytes each) are encoded into the RTP
header extension:

 

A) The maximum bandwidth requirement: Two bytes could contain everything
from some bps for real-time text to Gbps for future 3D supersize
telepresence… on a logarithmic scale.

 

B) The quality characteristics for the stream, with the highest bit set to
1, we could allocate a bit each quality e.g:

Best Effort, Audio, Video, Supplemental Video, Gaming, Data, Delay
Insensitive (e.g. video streaming), Minimum Delay, Reliable Delivery,
Prioritize X, Variation Y, that could be combined as required to describe
the stream.

 

And with highest bit set to 0, there could instead be a number for special
usage that does not fit the general description of the individual bits.

 

Please note the totally different requirements a diffserv and an RSVP
network have to know, so let’s put all into these bytes. (E.g. a diffserv
network don't need the bandwidth usage, but RSVP reservation networks (e.g.
cable and 3G/4G OTT) do. There one should initially reserve the maximum
bandwidth indicated, but can later re-reserve.)

 

/Karl

 

PS Microsoft seems to have done work in this field, defining a proprietary
attribute “MS Service Quality”; 

However that seems to apply to the TURN server allocation request and would
therefore:

--- Apply to the whole UDP flow, and could not be set for each stream
individually (with different requirements), and

--- Does not handle the bandwidth requirement for incoming real-time traffic
(required to reserve in RSVP type of networks)

However the quality attributes conveyed and their encoding may  be
considered.

 

This is 2.2.2.19 MS-Service Quality Attribute from 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc431507(v=office.12).aspx 

 

MS-Service Quality Attribute

The MS-Service Quality attribute is used to convey information about the
data stream that the protocol client is intending to transfer over an
allocated port. The protocol client SHOULD<21> include this attribute as
part of an Allocate request message. A TURN server SHOULD use the
information in this attribute to make decisions about resource allocation,
bandwidth prioritization, and data delivery methods. If the attribute is not
present in the Allocate request message, the TURN server SHOULD assume that
the data stream is audio with best effort delivery. The format of this
attribute is as follows... 

...

The following stream types are supported in this extension. All other stream
types are reserved for future use.

§ "0x0001": Audio

§ "0x0002": Video

§ "0x0003": Supplemental Video

§ "0x0004": Data

Service Quality (2 bytes): The service quality level required by the
protocol client for the stream.

The following service quality levels are supported in this extension. All
other service quality levels are reserved for future use.

§ "0x0000": Best effort delivery.

§ "0x0001": Reliable delivery.

 

 

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----

Från: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] För Harald
Alvestrand

Skickat: den 8 oktober 2013 13:01

Till: [e-mail]

Ämne: Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV: [mmusic] WGLC of
draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11

 

On 10/08/2013 09:17 AM, Karl Stahl wrote:

> Hej Magnus,

> 

>> Also, are you really interested in knowing that it is VP9 vs H.264, 

>> isn't

> the questions this is video of this priority that is important?

>> I think you need to more carefully consider what are the goals you 

>> try to

> achieve them.

> 

> Actually, my concern is to get an idea of the maximum bandwidth that 

> could be required for a WebRTC (ICE) setup media flow. Both voice and 

> video should be prioritized over data (their individual priority is of 

> less importance as long as there is sufficient bandwidth for both).

 

You don't know that without knowing what the application is for.

In, for instance, a shooter game with voice backchannels, the movement and
event information (data) is MORE time sensitive than the voice data.

 

> 

> With diffserv you don’t need to know the bandwidth requirement, but 

> with RSVP reservation (like in cable and mobile networks) you need to 

> know how much to reserve. Voice is like 100's kbit/s, video VP8 or 

> H.264 is like 3,5 mbps.

 

Again, without knowing the application, you don't know that.

The application could decide to use QCIF or HD, and the bandwidth variation
of screencast (semi-static with sudden, large changes) is completely
different from that of a talking head, which is again completely different
from a high-movement scene.

 

> 

> To add to the complication of codec variants, the video codecs in 

> question for WebRTC have variable bandwidth, and when there is a poor 

> connection we see Chrome reducing the video window size to reduce the
bandwidth used...

> 

> I think the payload type field at best can reflect a maximum bandwidth 

> to initially reserve bandwidth for, and thereafter make new 

> reservations if the bandwidth changes during the call. So could we 

> change RTP to show maximum bandwidth instead of payload type in that 

> field outside the encrypted payload :) ... Or maybe that is not a joke?

 

I think these ruminations only lead to one conclusion:

 

You can't tell what the needed bandwidth is up front without asking the
application.

You can't tell what the right priority ranking is without asking the
application.

 

If you need to know the bandwidth or the priority up front, the application
has to tell you. Anything else is pure heuristics.

 

_______________________________________________

rtcweb mailing list

 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

 

 

-- 

Colin Perkins

http://csperkins.org/

 

 

 

 

 

-- 

Colin Perkins

http://csperkins.org/