One document matched: draft-perkins-avt-rapid-rtp-sync-01.txt
Differences from draft-perkins-avt-rapid-rtp-sync-00.txt
Network Working Group C. Perkins
Internet-Draft University of Glasgow
Updates: RFC3550 January 12, 2009
(if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: July 16, 2009
Rapid Synchronisation of RTP Flows
draft-perkins-avt-rapid-rtp-sync-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 16, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Perkins Expires July 16, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTP Synchronisation January 2009
Abstract
This memo outlines how RTP multimedia sessions are synchronised, and
discusses how rapidly such synchronisation can occur. We show that
most RTP sessions can be synchronised immediately, but that the use
of video switching MCUs or large multicast (SSM) groups can greatly
increase the initial synchronisation delay. This increased delay can
be unacceptable to some applications that use layered and/or multi-
description codecs.
This memo changes to the RTCP timing rules to reduce the initial
synchronisation delay for SSM sessions. A new RTP/AVPF feedback
packet is defined to allow video switching MCUs to request rapid
resynchronisation, and a new RTP header extension is defined to
support rapid synchronisation for late joiners.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Synchronisation of RTP Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Initial Synchronisation Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Unicast Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. Source Specific Multicast (SSM) Sessions . . . . . . . 5
2.1.3. Any Source Multicast (ASM) Sessions . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Synchronisation for Late Joiners . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. In-band Synchronisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Rapid Resynchronisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Perkins Expires July 16, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTP Synchronisation January 2009
1. Introduction
When using RTP to deliver multimedia content it's often necessary to
synchronise playout of audio and video components of a presentation.
This is achieved using information contained in RTP Control Protocol
(RTCP) Sender Report (SR) packets [1]. These are sent periodically,
and the components of a multimedia session cannot be synchronised
until an RTCP SR packet has been received for each flow. Recently,
concern has been expressed that this initial synchronisation delay is
problematic for some applications, for example those using layered or
multiple description video coding. This memo reviews the operation
of RTP synchronisation, describes the initial synchronisation delay
that can be expected, and defines an enhancement to the Extended RTP
Profile for RTCP-based Feedback (RTP/AVPF) [2], and a new RTP header
extension, to provide faster synchronisation in some circumstances.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3].
2. Synchronisation of RTP Flows
RTP flows are synchronised by receivers based on information that is
contained in RTCP SR packets generated by senders (specifically, the
NTP and RTP timestamps). Each type of media (e.g. audio or video) is
sent in a separate RTP session, and the receiver associates RTP flows
to be synchronised by means of the canonical end-point identifier
(CNAME) item included in the RTCP Source Description (SDES) packets
generated by the sender. To ensure synchronisation, an RTP sender
MUST therefore send periodic compound RTCP packets following Section
6 of RFC 3550 [1].
The timing of these periodic compound RTCP packets will depend on the
number of members in each RTP session, the fraction of those that are
sending data, the session bandwidth, the configured RTCP bandwidth
fraction, and whether the session is multicast or unicast (see RFC
3550 Section 6.2 for details). In summary, RTCP control traffic is
allocated a small fraction, generally 5%, of the session bandwidth,
and of that fraction, one quarter is allocated to active RTP senders,
while receivers use the remaining three quarters (these fractions can
be configured via SDP [5]). Each member of an RTP session derives an
RTCP reporting interval based on these fractions, whether the session
is multicast or unicast, the number of members it has observed, and
whether it is actively sending data or not. It then sends a compound
RTCP packet on average once per reporting interval (the actual packet
transmission time is randomised in the range [0.5 ... 1.5] times the
reporting interval to avoid synchronisation of reports).
Perkins Expires July 16, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTP Synchronisation January 2009
A minimum reporting interval of 5 seconds is RECOMMENDED, except that
the delay before sending the initial report "MAY be set to half the
minimum interval to allow quicker notification that the new
participant is present" [1]. Also, for unicast sessions, "the delay
before sending the initial compound RTCP packet MAY be zero" [1]. In
addition, for unicast sessions, and for active senders in a multicast
session, the fixed minimum reporting interval MAY be scaled to "360
divided by the session bandwidth in kilobits/second. This minimum is
smaller than 5 seconds for bandwidths greater than 72 kb/s." [1]
2.1. Initial Synchronisation Delay
A multimedia session comprises a set of concurrent RTP sessions among
a common group of participants, using one RTP session for each media
type. For example, a videoconference (which is a multimedia session)
might contain an audio RTP session and a video RTP session. To allow
a receiver to synchronise the components of a multimedia session, a
compound RTCP packet containing an RTCP SR packet and an RTCP SDES
packet with a CNAME item MUST be sent to each of the RTP sessions in
the multimedia session. A receiver cannot synchronise playout across
the multimedia session until such RTCP packets have been received on
all of the component RTP sessions. If there is no packet loss, this
gives an expected initial synchronisation delay equal to the average
time taken to receive the first RTCP packet in the RTP session with
the longest RTCP reporting interval. This will vary between unicast
and multicast RTP sessions.
2.1.1. Unicast Sessions
For unicast multimedia sessions, senders SHOULD transmit an initial
compound RTCP packet (containing an RTCP SR packet and an RTCP SDES
packet with a CNAME item) immediately on joining each RTP session in
the multimedia session. The individual RTP sessions are considered
to be joined once any in-band signalling for NAT traversal (e.g. [6])
and/or security keying (e.g. [7],[8]) has concluded, and the media
path is open. This implies that the initial RTCP packet is sent in
parallel with the first data packet following the guidance in RFC
3550 that "the delay before sending the initial compound RTCP packet
MAY be zero" and, in the absence of any packet loss, flows can be
synchronised immediately.
Note that NAT pinholes, firewall holes, quality-of-service, and media
security keys should have been negotiated as part of the signalling,
whether in-band or out-of-band, before the first RTCP packet is sent.
This should ensure that any middleboxes are ready to accept traffic,
and reduce the likelihood that the initial RTCP packet will be lost.
Perkins Expires July 16, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTP Synchronisation January 2009
2.1.2. Source Specific Multicast (SSM) Sessions
For multicast sessions, the delay before sending the initial RTCP
packet, and hence the synchronisation delay, varies with the session
bandwidth and the number of members in the session. For a multicast
multimedia session, the average synchronisation delay will depend on
the slowest of the component RTP sessions; this will generally be the
session with the lowest bandwidth (assuming all the RTP sessions have
the same number of members).
When sending to a multicast group, the reduced minimum RTCP reporting
interval of 360 seconds divided by the session bandwidth in kilobits
per second [1] should be used when synchronisation latency is likely
to be an issue. Also, as usual, the reporting interval is halved for
the first RTCP packet. Depending on the session bandwidth and the
number of members, this gives the following average synchronisation
delays:
Session| Number of receivers (single sender assumed):
Bandwidth| 2 3 4 5 10 100 1000 10000
--+------------------------------------------------
8 kbps| 2.73 4.10 5.47 5.47 5.47 5.47 5.47 5.47
16 kbps| 2.50 2.50 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73
32 kbps| 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
64 kbps| 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
128 kbps| 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41
256 kbps| 0.70 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
512 kbps| 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
1 Mbps| 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
2 Mbps| 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
4 Mbps| 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Figure 1: Average RTCP Reporting Interval (seconds)
These numbers assume a single-source multicast channal with a single
active sender, which the rules in RFC 3550 section 6.3 give a fixed
fraction of the RTCP bandwidth irrespective of the number of
receivers. It can be seen that they are sufficient for lip-
synchronisation without excessive delay, but might be viewed as
having too much latency for synchronising parts of a layered video
stream.
The RTCP interval is randomised in the usual manner, so the minimum
synchronisation delay will be half these intervals, and the maximum
delay will be 1.5 times these intervals. Note also that these RTCP
intervals are calculated assuming perfect knowledge of the number of
members in the session. In practice, an implementation will have
Perkins Expires July 16, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTP Synchronisation January 2009
only limited knowledge of the size of the session when joining, and
will likely send its initial report early compared to these values,
following the RTCP reconsideration rules.
2.1.3. Any Source Multicast (ASM) Sessions
(tbd)
For ASM sessions, the fraction of members that are senders plays an
important role, and imply more varation in average RTCP reporting
interval.
2.1.4. Discussion
For unicast sessions, the existing RTCP SR-based mechanism allows for
immediate synchronisation, provided the initial RTCP packet is not
lost.
For SSM sessions, the initial synchronisation delay is sufficient for
lip-synchronisation, but may be larger than desired for some layered
codecs. The rationale for not sending immediate RTCP packets for
multicast groups is to avoid implosion of requests when large numbers
of members simultaneously join the group ("flash crowd"). This is
not an issue for SSM senders, since there can be at most one sender,
so it might be desirable to allow SSM senders to send an immediate
RTCP SR on joining a session (as is currenly allowed for unicast
sessions, which also don't suffer from the implosion problem). SSM
receivers using unicast feedback would not be allowed to send
immediate RTCP. This would be a change to RFC 3550, if accepted.
For ASM session... (tbd)
In all cases, it is possible that the initial RTCP SR packet is lost.
In this case, the receiver will not be able to synchronise the media
until the reporting interval has passed, and the next RTCP SR packet
is sent. This is undesirable. Section 4 defines a new RTP/AVPF
transport layer feedback message to request an RTCP SR be generated,
allowing rapid resynchronisation in the case of packet loss.
2.2. Synchronisation for Late Joiners
Synchronisation between RTP sessions is potentially slower for late
joiners, than for participants present at the start of the session.
The reasons for this are two-fold:
1. Many of the optimisations that allow rapid transmission of RTCP
SR packets apply only at the start of a session. This implies
that a new participant may have to wait a complete RTCP reporting
Perkins Expires July 16, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTP Synchronisation January 2009
interval for each session before receiveing the necessary data to
synchronise media streams. This might potentially take several
seconds, depending on the configured session bandwidth and the
number of participants.
2. Additional synchronisation delay comes from the nature of the
RTCP timing rules. Packets are generated on average once per
reporting interval but with the exact transmission times being
randomised +/- 50% to avoid synchronisation of reports. This is
important to avoid network congestion in multicast sessions, but
does mean that the timing of RTCP SR reports for different RTP
sessions aren't synchronised. Accordingly, a receiver must
estimate the skew on the NTP-format clock in order to align RTP
timestamps across sessions. This estimation is an essential part
of an RTP synchronisation implementation, and can be done exactly
given sufficient reports. Collecting sufficient RTCP SR data to
perform this estimation, however, may require several reports,
further increasing the synchronisation delay.
These delays are likely an issue for tuning in to an onoing multicast
RTP session, or for video switching MCUs.
3. In-band Synchronisation
The RTP header extension mechanism defined in [4] can be adopted to
carry an OPTIONAL NTP format wall clock timestamp in RTP data
packets. If such a timestamp is included, it MUST correspond to the
same time instant as the RTP timestamp in the packet's header, and
MUST be derived from the same clock used to generate the NTP format
timestamps included in RTCP SR packets. The format of such a header
extension is show below.
Perkins Expires July 16, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RTP Synchronisation January 2009
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V=2|P|1| CC |M| PT | sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+R
| timestamp |T
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+P
| synchronization source (SSRC) identifier |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
| 0xBE | 0xDE | length=3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+E
| ID | L=4 | NTP format timestamp... |x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+t
| ... NTP format timestamp (cont) ... |n
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ...NTP (cont) | 0 (pad) | 0 (pad) | 0 (pad) |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
| payload data |
| .... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note: it's unfortunate that three octets of padding are needed to
align the header extension. It may be worth defining a variant
that sends only the lower 56 bits of the NTP format timestamp, to
reduce the overheads (assuming the top 8 bits can be inferred),
although this is incompatible with the equivalent ISMA mechanism.
An NTP format wall clock timestamp may be included on any RTP packets
the sender chooses, but is expected to be most useful:
1. When sent on the RTP packets corresponding to a video random
access point, and on the associated audio packets, to allow rapid
synchronisation for late joiners and in video switching
scenarios.
2. When used with a layered, multi-description, or multi-view codec,
to provide exact synchronisation between layers, descriptions, or
views without requiring receivers to estimate clock skew between
wall and media clocks.
In all cases, irrespective of whether in-band NTP format timestamps
are included or not, regular RTCP SR packets MUST be sent to provide
backwards compatibility with receivers that synchronise RTP flows
according to RFC 3550 [1].
(tbd: signalling for this header extension)
Perkins Expires July 16, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RTP Synchronisation January 2009
4. Rapid Resynchronisation
The general format of an RTP/AVPF transport layer feedback message is
shown below.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V=2|P| FMT | PT=RTPFB=205 | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of packet sender |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of media source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Feedback Control Information (FCI) :
: :
A new feedback message type, RTCP-SR-REQ, is defined with FMT = XXX.
(the next available FMT is 5?) This MAY be sent to indicate that a
receiver is unable to synchronise media streams, and desires that the
media source send an RTCP SR packet as soon as possible (within the
constraints of RTCP the early feedback rules). On receipt of this,
the media source SHOULD generate an RTCP SR packet as soon as
possible within the RTCP early feedback rules. That RTCP SR packet
MAY be sent as a non-compound RTCP packet, if this has been
negotiated.
The Feedback Control Information (FCI) part of the packet is emtpy.
The SSRC of packet sender indicates the member that is unable to
synchronise media streams, while the SSRC of media source indicates
the sender of the media it is unable to synchronise. The lenght MUST
equal 2.
(tbd: discuss what happens if the feedback target is not co-located
with the sender)
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations of the RTP specification [1] and RTP/AVPF
profile [2] apply. No addtional security considerations apply due to
the RTP/AVPF rapid resynchronisation mechanism defined in Section 4.
6. IANA Considerations
(tbd - this needs to register the new RTP/AVPF transport layer
Perkins Expires July 16, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RTP Synchronisation January 2009
feedback packet type)
7. Acknowledgements
This memo has benefitted from discussions with numerous members of
the IETF AVT working group, including Magnus Westerlund, Thomas
Schierl, and Jonathan Lennox. The mechanism in Section 3 was
suggested by Dave Singer, matching a similar mechanism specified by
ISMA.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[1] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64,
RFC 3550, July 2003.
[2] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol
(RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, July 2006.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "A General Mechanism for RTP Header
Extensions", RFC 5285, July 2008.
8.2. Informative References
[5] Casner, S., "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Bandwidth
Modifiers for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Bandwidth", RFC 3556,
July 2003.
[6] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A
Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for
Offer/Answer Protocols", draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19 (work in
progress), October 2007.
[7] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for Secure Real-time
Transport Protocol (SRTP)", draft-ietf-avt-dtls-srtp-05 (work in
progress), September 2008.
[8] Zimmermann, P., Johnston, A., and J. Callas, "ZRTP: Media Path
Key Agreement for Secure RTP", draft-zimmermann-avt-zrtp-09
Perkins Expires July 16, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RTP Synchronisation January 2009
(work in progress), September 2008.
Author's Address
Colin Perkins
University of Glasgow
Department of Computing Science
Sir Alwyn Williams Building
Lilybank Gardens
Glasgow G12 8QQ
UK
Email: csp@csperkins.org
Perkins Expires July 16, 2009 [Page 11]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 20:10:27 |