RE: Keeping up data channel

Stefan Hakansson wrote:
>On 06/12/2012 07:36 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> On 06/11/2012 03:58 PM, Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com wrote:
>>>
>>> As long as we are using UDP, it is extremely costly for cellular
>>> connected mobile devices. In many networks keep-alives at least every
>>> 30 seconds are neeed to keep the UDP flow alive.
>> We also have to send something every 30 seconds to keep the
>> consent-to-receive alive in the case of media (and to maintain NAT
>> mappings). So as long as a PeerConnection remains unclosed, I think we
>> should assume that a packet will be sent every 30 seconds.
>
>I agree, and I also think this is more of a PeerConnection than a data channel
>issue.
>
>I think we need to make developers close the PeerConnection when it is not
>needed. A way to promote this would of course be to make PeerConnection
>set up fast.
>

Fair enough. It would be useful to write this down somewhere in our documents. People would probably expect that leaving audio/video sessions on has an ill effect on power consumption, but might not understand that the same would apply to idle peer-to-peer data channels. Apps should close them e.g. when they are on "background", and just leave the "signaling" connection open so that they can be quickly re-established.

Markus

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 21:10:03 UTC