- From: SUN Yang <sun.yang.nj@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:36:17 +0800
- To: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAO6ZCZ1cNzz8R-A8i2pnza0m47JDDzgbcCa+itvCDqvwgN166w@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK < stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: > On 06/12/2012 07:36 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > >> On 06/11/2012 03:58 PM, Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> In today's WebRTC meeting a discussion came up on how costly it is >>> to keep an unused data channel connected. >>> >>> 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. > > Why set up PeerConnection fast means closing PeerConnection when not needed? But I agree with you on it is more like a PeerConnection Issue than dataChannel issue. -- Yang Huawei
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 13:36:51 UTC