W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > June 2012

RE: Keeping up data channel

From: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 21:09:28 +0000
To: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB76223FA57@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com>


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:28 UTC