[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [AVT] Comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-begen-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-01
Ali,
See below..
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Ali C. Begen (abegen) [mailto:abegen at cisco.com]
Sent: vrijdag 30 oktober 2009 16:48
To: VAN CAENEGEM Tom; avt at ietf.org
Cc: mmusic at ietf.org
Subject: RE: Comments on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-begen-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-01
Hi Tom,
Thanks for reading the revised draft.
> Hi Ali,
>
> When reading through the draft
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-begen-avt-ports-for-ucast-
> mcast-rtp-01
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-begen-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-
> 01> , including your editor comments, I understand that despite the
> cookie exchange solution, it does not allow to have a "stateless"
> server (that is, the server needs to remember the ports). You indeed
> correctly pointed out that RTCP SR messages are unsollicited, so they
> cannot be linked to a received cookie. I do not think it makes sense
> to "forbid" the server (RS in the considered use cases) to send RTCP
> SR at any moment in time. Hence, as
Yes, sender reports pose a problem at this time (the server needs to
remember the port). There may be a nice solution to it, but we don't
have any for now.
> the RS needs to remember anyhow the ports and thus must keep state,
> the cookie would no longer be needed from that perspective. Is that an
> appropriate conclusion? Port mapping
That is where we are now. But I am not sure whether the WG will make
that conclusion.
> response message (exchange) is then no longer needed anymore, although
> I understand this message is also a kind of confirmation of reception
of the port mapping request message.
Yes, response serves as a confirmation of the request.
> You also mention that NAT tolerance is a design criterium. How was
> that taken into account in the proposed messaging flow?
We have not gotten into its details yet. But, yes, nat friendliness is
desired/required.
> The NAT friendly solution IMO is that the port mapping request
> messages for RTP and RTCP is sent along with a RAMS-R FB by the RR to
> the RS whereas a port mapping request for RTP
But this message (since it includes RAMS-R) needs to go to port P2 on RS
(rtcp port for the primary mcast session) instead of port P3.
TOM: I meant two separate RTCP messages, the RAMS-R sent to port P2, and
the port mapping request is sent to port P3. Not a neat solution either,
I agree.
> is sent along with a NACK FB by the RR to the RS. This is not to
> inform the RS of the ports it should use each time -as it needs to
> remember that anyhow and keep state based on the 1st received port
> maping request by the RR- but to open the NAPT in between. The
disadvantage is of course the higher messaging load for the RS (and RR).
>
> I realise the draft wants to provide an answer on how an RR can
> indicate the UDP ports it wishes to use for RTP unicast sessions
> without any session-signaling protocol involved, but I do not think
> all design criteria can be met. I think we can drop the cookie, and
> just keep the port mapping response/request message (without cookie),
> meaning the RS needs to keep state of the port allocated to each RR
> based on acknowledged port mapping request messages, and when
receiving RTCP Byes in the retransmission session, it can drop the
"state".
This is an interesting proposal but we are giving up from the stateless
server idea. Are we willing to do that? In order to keep the server
stateless, we might break another rule, if we have to, and re-consider
our earlier proposal - PubPorts (where port numbers are directly
transmitted in the RTCP message). That will satisfy our requirements
except that it introduces layer violation.
TOM: don't you still face the same issue, that RTCP SR get sent by the
RS unsollicited, so the RS needs to remember from previous received
pubport message, which port to use for the RTCP SR?
> In my opinion, the ideal solution is still that we can make the P2 and
> P3 ports on the RS equal, where a single message (RAMS-R or NACK) by
> an RR will allow the response (RTP burst or RTP retransmission packet)
> to pass through NAT, provided the RR supports the RTP/RTCP
Yes, your proposal above requires this.
TOM: not really, but making P2=P3 on top of that definitely takes away
many complexities and "overhead".
> port muxing. I realise this would require the RS to use an SSRC in
> the unicast retransmission session that is different from the one used
> in the primary SSM session- allowing the RS to distinguish RTCP
messages based on the media SSRC in the RTCP messages.
> However, using a different SSRC when retransmission session muxing is
> used, is forbidden
Correct.
> by RFC 4588. But there is no justification in RFC 4588 why this was
> disallowed, and further inquiries have made me believe that there is
> really no hard reason why this constraint was imposed.
I believe the reason is to allow for easier monitoring and processing of
RTCP reports. If a session and its retransmission session use different
SSRCs, how do we correlate them at the monitoring (RTCP processing)
agent? There can be multiple primary sessions and their retransmission
sessions running on the same client at the same time.
TOM: the agent needs the SDP -or any other signaling info- to start the
monitoring process. This may include SSRC information. If not, the RFC
4588 indicates how association can be done for ssrc-multiplexed scheme,
and I cannot see why the described approach cannot be mapped to the
session-multiplexed scheme where the original and the retransmission
stream have a different SSRC.
> As you know, in the DVB retransmission solution for linear TV (hence
> SSM sessions), it is allowed to use a different SSRC even though
> session muxing is used (as the UNICAST retransmission session is
> associated with a SSM session), "overruling" RFC 4588 on that aspect.
> This then allows making P2=P3, with no ambiguities for the RS in
> resolving which incoming RTCP message belongs to which session (either
> the unicast retransmission session or the unicast feedback channel of
the SSM session). This solution requires no port signaling at all and
is NAT friendly.
Yes, I am aware of that. I will try to get an answer from MMUSIC folks,
too. In fact, I cc'ed mmsuic hoping that someone will clarify this
requirement in RFC 4588.
Thanks again,
-acbegen
> Regards
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>