Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] RE: [AVT] Update of rtp-keepalive draft

From: "Yuval Nissan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:12:10 +0200

RTCP is the right solution. However in practice not all devices support
RTCP, and using mechanism like the No-Op (that puts limit on the maximum
time of no data in the connection) can help in these cases.

Regards,
Yuval 

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:10 AM
To: Yuval Nissan
Cc: Colin Perkins; Lee Dilkie; Xavier Marjou; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] RE: [AVT] Update of rtp-keepalive draft

Yuval Nissan skrev:
> The issue of keepalive is also related to the RTP endpoint - If the
remote side stops the voice connection because of some problem during
silence, there is no certain way to discover it.

The solution to that is called RTCP. It is there, it also provides other

features. Use it instead of inventing new mechanisms.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:19:47 +0000

Or you could just implement RTCP. It's not like it's difficult to do  
a minimal implementation...

Colin

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

---

From: Lee Dilkie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:58:37 -0500

It's been a while since I read the specs but doesn't RTCP use different
(+1) ports than RTP? If so then it isn't a solution.

-lee

Colin Perkins wrote:
> Or you could just implement RTCP. It's not like it's difficult to do a
> minimal implementation...
>
> Colin
>
>
> --Colin Perkins

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:07:16 +0000

Yes, but there is a proposal to allow RTCP on the RTP port for this  
reason. See draft-ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux-03.txt.

Colin

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

---

From: Lee Dilkie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:37:54 -0500

Seems a little heavyweight to solve what is essentially a network layer
problem. I'm not a fan of trying to guess at protocols in realtime based
on what's put in front of me, I worry about the security implications.
For that reason I like the 0-byte udp approach, it cannot be confused
with anything else (RTP or RTCP). As well, the 0-byte technique can be
used for other protocols, like RTCP, to aid them in traversing NAT.

It would be nice if we could use a time machine to go baaaack in order
to fix the future (wasn't that a movie?) but we have what we have I guess.

-lee

Colin Perkins wrote:
> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt