1 / 10

Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Recommendations for SIPREC (draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-03)

Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Recommendations for SIPREC (draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-03). IETF 83 SIPREC WG Meeting March 29, 2011. Charles Eckel (eckelcu@cisco.com). Goals for this sessions. Separate RTP roles of SRC within CS vs. RS RTP session usage by SRC

yuli-richardson
Download Presentation

Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Recommendations for SIPREC (draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-03)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Recommendations for SIPREC(draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-03) IETF 83 SIPREC WG Meeting March 29, 2011 Charles Eckel (eckelcu@cisco.com)

  2. Goals for this sessions • Separate RTP roles of SRC within CS vs. RS • RTP session usage by SRC • Expand recommendations for UA • Discuss future of this draft IETF 82 SIPREC WG Meeting, Nov. 17, 2011

  3. Independent Sessions • RTP models for CS != those for RS • CS = Existing session to be recorded • RS = Session established with the recorder • RTP models for CS != those for RS

  4. RTP Model for SBC (CS) vs. SRC (RS) • SBC might act as RTP forwarding or transcoding translator • Yet SRC might act as RTP endpoint or mixer SRS RTP SRC UA-A SBC UA-B RTP RTP

  5. SRC Using Multiple m-lines • CS CNAME -> RS CNAME • CS SSRCs -> RS SSRCs SRS SSRC aa SSRC ba SSRC av SSRC bv UA-A (CNAME-A) SRC (CNAME-A, CNAME-B) UA-B (CNAME-B) SSRC ba SSRC aa SSRC bv SSRC av • If SRS does not support, it rejects some m-lines and SRC needs to choose another option.

  6. SRC Using SSRC Multiplexing • CS CNAME -> RS CNAME • CS SSRCs -> RS SSRCs SRS SSRC aa SSRC ba SSRC av SSRC bv UA-A (CNAME-A) SRC (CNAME-A, CNAME-B) UA-B (CNAME-B) SSRC ba SSRC aa SSRC bv SSRC av • If SRS does not support, SRC finds out through RTCP receiver reports and chooses another option

  7. SRC Using Mixing • CS CNAME -> RS CNAME • CS SSRCs -> RS CSRCs SRS SSRC sa, CSRC aa,ba SSRC sv, CSRC av,bv UA-A (CNAME-A) SRC (CNAME-S, CNAME-A, CNAME-B) UA-B (CNAME-B) SSRC ba SSRC aa SSRC bv SSRC av • If SRS does not support, it relies on metadata • Does SRC need to know?

  8. Multiple CNAMEs per Participant • What to do about it? • Include list of CNAMEs in Participant metadata • Use SDP attribute to group them • Don’t allow it • Don’t worry about it • ... IETF 82 SIPREC WG Meeting, Nov. 17, 2011

  9. Recommendations for UAs • Most of the draft focuses on the SRC and SRS • Loss handling touches on UAs a bit • We have the concept of a recording aware UA • Should be add recommendations for recording aware UAs? IETF 82 SIPREC WG Meeting, Nov. 17, 2011

  10. Next Steps • draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec exists a standalone document • This was done purposely to facilitate development and discussion of RTP related SIPREC functionality • Plan of record is to incorporate into draft-ietf-siprec-protocol eventually • Is now the appropriate time? • Alternatively, do we adopt as its own working group draft? IETF 82 SIPREC WG Meeting, Nov. 17, 2011

More Related