WebRTC Offer SDP should include tmmbr by default and answer offers with tmmbr
Categories
(Core :: WebRTC: Signaling, defect, P3)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: jesup, Unassigned)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
| Reporter | ||
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
| Reporter | ||
Comment 4•10 years ago
|
||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
| bugherder | ||
Comment 8•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 10•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 11•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 12•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 13•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 14•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 15•9 years ago
|
||
| Reporter | ||
Comment 16•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 17•8 years ago
|
||
Comment 18•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 19•7 years ago
|
||
Comment 20•4 years ago
|
||
Hi,
our WebRTC based video conferencing middle box is supporting Chrome for a couple of years now. We're also playing around with Firefox support and the audio part works as expected.
We make use of the TMMBR feature as it is part of the WebRTC standard (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-26#section-5.1.6 -> " WebRTC Endpoints that are sending media are REQUIRED to implement support for TMMBR messages, and MUST follow bandwidth limitations set by a TMMBR message received for their SSRC. The sending of TMMBR requests is OPTIONAL.") but noticed it's not supported by Firefox WebRTC implementation and we stumbled over this ticket here.
We also found this as being the reason why it's disabled: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1279039
My question would be: is the bug mentioned above still an issue? If not TMMBR, how should a WebRTC peer restrict the bandwidth of the sender in case of a middle box where you forward media and you want to apply the restrictions of the receivers to the source? Any advice would be appreciated.
Best
Alex
| Reporter | ||
Comment 21•4 years ago
|
||
I don't think Cisco Spark is a thing anymore (right?) We should try re-enabling, probably in conjunction with the reporter to test it. (I presume logmein.com is the company)
Comment 22•4 years ago
|
||
Thanks for the fast reply, really appreciated. Yes, it's about LogMeIn (GoTo). I would assume for now, that we can check if TMMBR for Firefox is working in our scenarios using media.navigator.video.use_tmmbr, right?
Comment 23•4 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Alex from comment #22)
Thanks for the fast reply, really appreciated. Yes, it's about LogMeIn (GoTo). I would assume for now, that we can check if TMMBR for Firefox is working in our scenarios using media.navigator.video.use_tmmbr, right?
I believe that should work, yes, but I find myself wondering whether the tmmbr code in libwebrtc works at all:
Updated•4 years ago
|
Comment 24•4 years ago
|
||
Another Alex from Goto here. We did a check with and without enabled media.navigator.video.use_tmmbr and didn't see a difference when sending TMMBR requests except for an additional ccm parameter ccm tmmbr in the SDP offer of the Firefox. However in further tests it looks like TMMBR is working nevertheless all the time anyway.
May it be that Firefox always handles TMMBR messages although it might not have sent out a ccm tmmbr parameter (and got a respective answer) at all?
Comment 25•4 years ago
|
||
I guess libwebrtc enables tmmbr unilaterally (which is a spec violation, but whatever).
Updated•3 years ago
|
Updated•2 years ago
|
Description
•