W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > May 2018

Re: ICE freezing and Bandwidth Estimation

From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 07:09:31 +0000
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
CC: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D7357B00.30AF1%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Hi,

>I'm not saying we "remove" freezing. I'm saying we don't do anything in the WebRTC 2.0/NV API to support it because it's not worth the complexity.

Why would you need to do something in the API? Freezing is taken care of by the ICE stack, isnít it?

Or, is the idea to allow the user to override what is going on in the check lists?

Regards,

Christer




On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:33 AM Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi,

I still fail to see how this is related to removing freezing. Sure, you can avoid freezing by using a separate PC for each stream, or to mandate BUNDLE, but why would it have to be removed?

Regards,

Christer

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com<mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday 24 May 2018 at 22:59
To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com<mailto:Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>>
Cc: "pthatcher@google.com<mailto:pthatcher@google.com>" <pthatcher@google.com<mailto:pthatcher@google.com>>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no<mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>>, "public-webrtc@w3.org<mailto:public-webrtc@w3.org>" <public-webrtc@w3.org<mailto:public-webrtc@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: ICE freezing and Bandwidth Estimation
Resent-From: "public-webrtc@w3.org<mailto:public-webrtc@w3.org>" <public-webrtc@w3.org<mailto:public-webrtc@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Thursday 24 May 2018 at 23:00



On Thu., 24 May 2018, 11:14 am Bernard Aboba, <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com<mailto:Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>> wrote:
On May 23, 2018, at 16:49, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com<mailto:pthatcher@google.com>> wrote:
>
> I'm not saying anyone would do it, because it's kind of madness.  But it's a theoretically-possible madness.
>
> Here's a simple proof:  we know that unbundled m-lines can have transports connected to different hosts (with different DTLS certs, etc).  And those hosts can be browsers, and those browsers would be different PeerConnections.
>
> The congestion control might not work well, but ICE will.

[BA] In a small conference use case, it is common for a browser to have multiple PeerConnections, each to a different mesh participant.  Since many conferences are in practice small (less than 4 participants), this is quite a practical scenario.

An expeditious way to establish such a mesh conference is to send an Offer that can be responded to by multiple mesh participants (e.g. broadcast the Offer to a Room, and have other participants respond to the Offerer) so that the conference can get started in a single RTT.  Requirements:

a. Support for parallel forking.  This is what lead to the IceGather/IceTransport separation in ORTC.
b. Need to be able to construct multiple DtlsTransports from the same local certificate.
c. Need to restrict aggregate outgoing bandwidth for all mesh connections.

What's the advantage of this over sending multiple offers in parallel in JavaScript (asynch)? In my opinion this is needlessly complicating things - you need to manage the connection with each endpoint separately anyway.

Just my 2c worth...

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2018 07:10:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:41 UTC