[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-singh-avt-mprtp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

AVT Core Working Group                                          V. Singh
Internet-Draft                                             T. Karkkainen
Intended status: Experimental                                     J. Ott
Expires: January 1, 2015                                        S. Ahsan
                                                        Aalto University
                                                               L. Eggert
                                                                  NetApp
                                                           June 30, 2014


                         Multipath RTP (MPRTP)
                      draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-09

Abstract

   The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used to deliver real-time
   content and, along with the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP), forms the
   control channel between the sender and receiver.  However, RTP and
   RTCP assume a single delivery path between the sender and receiver
   and make decisions based on the measured characteristics of this
   single path.  Increasingly, endpoints are becoming multi-homed, which
   means that they are connected via multiple Internet paths.  Network
   utilization can be improved when endpoints use multiple parallel
   paths for communication.  The resulting increase in reliability and
   throughput can also enhance the user experience.  This document
   extends the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) so that a single
   session can take advantage of the availability of multiple paths
   between two endpoints.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2015.






Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Use-cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Functional goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Compatibility goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  RTP Topologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  MPRTP Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Example Media Flow Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Streaming use-case  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Conversational use-case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  MPRTP Functional Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Available Mechanisms within the Functional Blocks . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Session Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.1.1.  Connectivity Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.1.2.  Adding New or Updating Interfaces . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.1.3.  In-band vs. Out-of-band Signaling . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.2.  Expanding RTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.3.  Expanding RTCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.4.  Failure Handling and Teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  MPRTP Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       8.1.1.  Gather or Discovering Candidates  . . . . . . . . . .  15
       8.1.2.  NAT Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       8.1.3.  Choosing between In-band (in RTCP) and Out-of-band
               (in SDP) Interface Advertisement  . . . . . . . . . .  16
       8.1.4.  In-band Interface Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       8.1.5.  Subflow ID Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       8.1.6.  Active and Passive Subflows . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.2.  RTP Transmission  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


     8.3.  Playout Considerations at the Receiver  . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.4.  Subflow-specific RTCP Statistics and RTCP Aggregation . .  18
     8.5.  RTCP Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   9.  Packet Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     9.1.  RTP Header Extension for MPRTP  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       9.1.1.  MPRTP RTP Extension for a Subflow . . . . . . . . . .  20
     9.2.  RTCP Extension for MPRTP (MPRTCP) . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       9.2.1.  MPRTCP Extension for Subflow Reporting  . . . . . . .  23
         9.2.1.1.  MPRTCP for Subflow-specific SR, RR and XR . . . .  24
     9.3.  MPRTCP Extension for Interface advertisement  . . . . . .  26
   10. RTCP Timing reconsiderations for MPRTCP . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   11. SDP Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     11.1.  Signaling MPRTP Header Extension in SDP  . . . . . . . .  28
     11.2.  Signaling MPRTP capability in SDP  . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     11.3.  MPRTP with ICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     11.4.  Increased Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     11.5.  Offer/Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       11.5.1.  In-band Signaling Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     12.1.  MPRTP Header Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     12.2.  MPRTCP Packet Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     12.3.  SDP Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
       12.3.1.  "mprtp" attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   14. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   Appendix A.  Interoperating with Legacy Applications  . . . . . .  36
   Appendix B.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     B.1.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-09 . . . . . . . . .  36
     B.2.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-08 . . . . . . . . .  36
     B.3.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-06 and -07 . . . . .  36
     B.4.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-05 . . . . . . . . .  36
     B.5.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-04 . . . . . . . . .  37
     B.6.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-03 . . . . . . . . .  37
     B.7.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-02 . . . . . . . . .  37
     B.8.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-01 . . . . . . . . .  38
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38

1.  Introduction

   Multi-homed endpoints are becoming common in today's Internet, e.g.,
   devices that support multiple wireless access technologies such as 3G
   and Wireless LAN.  This means that there is often more than one
   network path available between two endpoints.  Transport protocols,
   such as RTP, have not been designed to take advantage of the
   availability of multiple concurrent paths and therefore cannot



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   benefit from the increased capacity and reliability that can be
   achieved by pooling their respective capacities.

   Multipath RTP (MPRTP) is an OPTIONAL extension to RTP [RFC3550] that
   allows splitting a single RTP stream into multiple subflows that are
   transmitted over different paths.  In effect, this pools the resource
   capacity of multiple paths.  Multipath RTCP (MPRTCP) is an extension
   to RTCP, it is used along with MPRTP to report per-path sender and
   receiver characteristics.

   Other IETF transport protocols that are capable of using multiple
   paths include SCTP [RFC4960], MPTCP [RFC6182] and SHIM6 [RFC5533].
   However, these protocols are not suitable for real-time
   communications.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].

1.2.  Terminology

   o  Endpoint: host either initiating or terminating an RTP flow.

   o  Interface: logical or physical component that is capable of
      acquiring a unique IP address.

   o  Path: sequence of links between a sender and a receiver.
      Typically, defined by a set of source and destination addresses.

   o  Subflow: flow of RTP packets along a specific path, i.e., a subset
      of the packets belonging to an RTP stream.  The combination of all
      RTP subflows forms the complete RTP stream.  Typically, a subflow
      would map to a unique path, i.e., each combination of IP addresses
      and port pairs (5-tuple, including protocol) is a unique subflow.

1.3.  Use-cases

   The primary use-case for MPRTP is transporting high bit-rate
   streaming multimedia content between endpoints, where at least one is
   multi-homed.  Such endpoints could be residential IPTV devices that
   connect to the Internet through two different Internet service
   providers (ISPs), or mobile devices that connect to the Internet
   through 3G and WLAN interfaces.  By allowing RTP to use multiple
   paths for transmission, the following gains can be achieved:





Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   o  Higher quality: Pooling the resource capacity of multiple Internet
      paths allows higher bit-rate and higher quality codecs to be used.
      From the application perspective, the available bandwidth between
      the two endpoints increases.

   o  Load balancing: Transmitting an RTP stream over multiple paths
      reduces the bandwidth usage on a single path, which in turn
      reduces the impact of the media stream on other traffic on that
      path.

   o  Fault tolerance: When multiple paths are used in conjunction with
      redundancy mechanisms (FEC, re-transmissions, etc.), outages on
      one path have less impact on the overall perceived quality of the
      stream.

   A secondary use-case for MPRTP is transporting Voice over IP (VoIP)
   calls to a device with multiple interfaces.  Again, such an endpoint
   could be a mobile device with multiple wireless interfaces.  In this
   case, little is to be gained from resource pooling, i.e., higher
   capacity or load balancing, because a single path should be easily
   capable of handling the required load.  However, using multiple
   concurrent subflows can improve fault tolerance, because traffic can
   shift between the subflows when path outages occur.  This results in
   very fast transport-layer handovers that do not require support from
   signaling.

2.  Goals

   This section outlines the basic goals that multipath RTP aims to
   meet.  These are broadly classified as Functional goals and
   Compatibility goals.

2.1.  Functional goals

   Allow unicast RTP session to be split into multiple subflows in order
   to be carried over multiple paths.  This may prove beneficial in case
   of video streaming.

   o  Increased Throughput: Cumulative capacity of the two paths may
      meet the requirements of the multimedia session.  Therefore, MPRTP
      MUST support concurrent use of the multiple paths.

   o  Improved Reliability: MPRTP SHOULD be able to send redundant
      packets or re-transmit packets along any available path to
      increase reliability.






Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   The protocol SHOULD be able to open new subflows for an existing
   session when new paths appear and MUST be able to close subflows when
   paths disappear.

2.2.  Compatibility goals

   MPRTP MUST be backwards compatible; an MPRTP stream needs to fall
   back to be compatible with legacy RTP stacks if MPRTP support is not
   successfully negotiated.

   o  Application Compatibility: MPRTP service model MUST be backwards
      compatible with existing RTP applications, i.e., an MPRTP stack
      MUST be able to work with legacy RTP applications and not require
      changes to them.  Therefore, the basic RTP APIs MUST remain
      unchanged, but an MPRTP stack MAY provide extended APIs so that
      the application can configure any additional features provided by
      the MPRTP stack.

   o  Network Compatibility: individual RTP subflows MUST themselves be
      well-formed RTP flows, so that they are able to traverse NATs and
      firewalls.  This MUST be the case even when interfaces appear
      after session initiation.  Interactive Connectivity Establishment
      (ICE) [RFC5245] MAY be used for discovering new interfaces or
      performing connectivity checks.

3.  RTP Topologies

   RFC 5117 [RFC5117] describes a number of scenarios using mixers and
   translators in single-party (point-to-point), and multi-party (point-
   to-multipoint) scenarios.  RFC 3550 [RFC3550] (Section 2.3 and 7.x)
   discuss in detail the impact of mixers and translators on RTP and
   RTCP packets.  MPRTP assumes that if a mixer or translator exists in
   the network, then either all of the multiple paths or none of the
   multiple paths go via this component.

4.  MPRTP Architecture

   In a typical scenario, an RTP session uses a single path.  In an
   MPRTP scenario, an RTP session uses multiple subflows that each use a
   different path.  Figure 1 shows the difference.











Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   +--------------+                Signaling            +--------------+
   |              |------------------------------------>|              |
   |    Client    |<------------------------------------|    Server    |
   |              |           Single RTP flow           |              |
   +--------------+                                     +--------------+

   +--------------+              Signaling              +--------------+
   |              |------------------------------------>|              |
   |    Client    |<------------------------------------|    Server    |
   |              |<------------------------------------|              |
   +--------------+            MPRTP subflows           +--------------+

     Figure 1: Comparison between traditional RTP streaming and MPRTP

   +-----------------------+         +-------------------------------+
   |      Application      |         |          Application          |
   +-----------------------+         +-------------------------------+
   |                       |         |             MPRTP             |
   +          RTP          +         +- - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - -+
   |                       |         |  RTP subflow  |  RTP subflow  |
   +-----------------------+         +---------------+---------------+
   |          UDP          |         |      UDP      |      UDP      |
   +-----------------------+         +---------------+---------------+
   |           IP          |         |       IP      |       IP      |
   +-----------------------+         +---------------+---------------+

                       Figure 2: MPRTP Architecture

   Figure 2 illustrates the differences between the standard RTP stack
   and the MPRTP stack.  MPRTP receives a normal RTP session from the
   application and splits it into multiple RTP subflows.  Each subflow
   is then sent along a different path to the receiver.  To the network,
   each subflow appears as an independent, well-formed RTP flow.  At the
   receiver, the subflows are combined to recreate the original RTP
   session.  The MPRTP layer performs the following functions:

   o  Path Management: The layer is aware of alternate paths to the
      other host, which may, for example, be the peer's multiple
      interfaces.  This enables the endpoint to transmit differently
      marked packets along separate paths.  MPRTP also selects
      interfaces to send and receive data.  Furthermore, it manages the
      port and IP address pair bindings for each subflow.

   o  Packet Scheduling: the layer splits a single RTP flow into
      multiple subflows and sends them across multiple interfaces
      (paths).  The splitting MAY BE done using different path
      characteristics.




Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   o  Subflow recombination: the layer creates the original stream by
      recombining the independent subflows.  Therefore, the multipath
      subflows appear as a single RTP stream to applications.

5.  Example Media Flow Diagrams

   There may be many complex technical scenarios for MPRTP, however,
   this memo only considers the following two scenarios: 1) a
   unidirectional media flow that represents the streaming use-case, and
   2) a bidirectional media flow that represents a conversational use-
   case.

5.1.  Streaming use-case

   In the unidirectional scenario, the receiver (client) initiates a
   multimedia session with the sender (server).  The receiver or the
   sender may have multiple interfaces and both endpoints are MPRTP-
   capable.  Figure 3 shows this scenario.  In this case, host A has
   multiple interfaces.  Host B performs connectivity checks on host A's
   multiple interfaces.  If the interfaces are reachable, then host B
   streams multimedia data along multiple paths to host A. Moreover,
   host B also sends RTCP Sender Reports (SR) for each subflow and host
   A responds with a normal RTCP Receiver Report (RR) for the overall
   session as well as the receiver statistics for each subflow.  Host B
   distributes the packets across the subflows based on the individually
   measured path characteristics.

   Alternatively, to reduce media startup time, host B may start
   streaming multimedia data to host A's initiating interface and then
   perform connectivity checks for the other interfaces.  This method of
   updating a single path session to a multipath session is called
   "multipath session upgrade".



















Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


           Host A                           Host B
   -----------------------                ----------
   Interface A1   Interface A2            Interface B1
   -----------------------                ----------
       |                                      |
       |------------------------------------->| Session setup with
       |<-------------------------------------| multiple interfaces
       |            |                         |
       |            |                         |
       |       (RTP data B1->A1, B1->A2)      |
       |<=====================================|
       |            |<========================|
       |            |                         |
       Note: there may be more scenarios.

                    Figure 3: Unidirectional media flow

5.2.  Conversational use-case

   In the bidirectional scenario, multimedia data flows in both
   directions.  The two hosts exchange their lists of interfaces with
   each other and perform connectivity checks.  Communication begins
   after each host finds suitable address, port pairs.  Interfaces that
   receive data send back RTCP receiver statistics for that path (based
   on the 5-tuple).  The hosts balance their multimedia stream across
   multiple paths based on the per path reception statistics and its own
   volume of traffic.  Figure 4 describes an example of a bidirectional
   flow.























Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


           Host A                             Host B
   ---------------------------       ---------------------------
   Interface A1   Interface A2       Interface B1   Interface B2
   ---------------------------       ---------------------------
     |            |                       |            |
     |            |                       |            |Session setup
     |----------------------------------->|            |with multiple
     |<-----------------------------------|            |interfaces
     |            |                       |            |
     |            |                       |            |
     |    (RTP data B1<->A1, B2<->A2)     |            |
     |<===================================|            |
     |            |<===================================|
     |===================================>|            |
     |            |===================================>|
     |            |                       |            |
       Note: the address pairs may have other permutations,
       and they may be symmetric or asymmetric combinations.

                       Figure 4: Bidirectional flow

6.  MPRTP Functional Blocks

   This section describes some of the functional blocks needed for
   MPRTP.  We then investigate each block and consider available
   mechanisms in the next section.

   1.  Session Setup: Interfaces may appear or disappear at anytime
       during the session.  To preserve backward compatibility with
       legacy applications, a multipath session MUST look like a bundle
       of individual RTP sessions.  A multipath session may be upgraded
       from a typical single path session, as and when new interfaces
       appear or disappear.  However, it is also possible to setup a
       multipath session from the beginning, if the interfaces are
       available at the start of the multimedia session.

   2.  Expanding RTP: For a multipath session, each subflow MUST look
       like an independent RTP flow, so that individual RTCP messages
       can be generated per subflow.  Furthermore, MPRTP splits the
       single multimedia stream into multiple subflows based on path
       characteristics (e.g. RTT, loss-rate, receiver rate, bandwidth-
       delay product etc.) and dynamically adjusts the load on each
       link.

   3.  Adding Interfaces: Interfaces on the host need to be regularly
       discovered and advertised.  This can be done at session setup and
       /or during the session.  Discovering interfaces is outside the
       scope of this document.



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   4.  Expanding RTCP: MPRTP MUST provide per path RTCP reports for
       monitoring the quality of the path, for load balancing, or for
       congestion control, etc.  To maintain backward compatibility with
       legacy applications, the receiver MUST also send aggregate RTCP
       reports along with the per-path reports.

   5.  Maintenance and Failure Handling: In a multi-homed endpoint
       interfaces may appear and disappear.  If this occurs at the
       sender, it has to re-adjust the load on the available links.  On
       the other hand, if this occurs at the receiver, then the
       multimedia data transmitted by the sender to those interfaces is
       lost.  This data may be re-transmitted along a different path
       i.e., to a different interface on the receiver.  Furthermore, the
       endpoint has to either explicitly signal the disappearance of an
       interface, or the other endpoint has to detect it (by lack of
       media packets, RTCP feedback, or keep-alive packets).

   6.  Teardown: The MPRTP layer releases the occupied ports on the
       interfaces.

7.  Available Mechanisms within the Functional Blocks

   This section discusses some of the possible alternatives for each
   functional block mentioned in the previous section.

7.1.  Session Setup

   MPRTP session can be set up in many possible ways e.g., during
   handshake, or upgraded mid-session.  The capability exchange may be
   done using out-of-band signaling (e.g., Session Description Protocol
   (SDP) [RFC3264] in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261], Real-
   Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis]) or in-
   band signaling (e.g., RTP/RTCP header extension, Session Traversal
   Utilities for NAT (STUN) messages).

7.1.1.  Connectivity Checks

   The endpoint SHOULD be capable of performing connectivity checks
   (e.g., using ICE [RFC5245]).  If the IP addresses of the endpoints
   are reachable (e.g., globally addressable, same network etc) then
   connectivity checks are not needed.

7.1.2.  Adding New or Updating Interfaces

   Interfaces can appear and disappear during a session, the endpoint
   MUST be capable of advertising the changes in its set of usable
   interfaces.  Additionally, the application or OS may define a policy
   on when and/or what interfaces are usable.  However, MPRTP requires a



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   method to advertise or notify the other endpoint about the updated
   set of usable interfaces.

7.1.3.  In-band vs. Out-of-band Signaling

   MTRTP nodes will generally use a signaling protocol to establish
   their MPRTP session.  With the existence of such a signaling
   relationship, two alternatives become available to exchange
   information about the available interfaces on each side for extending
   RTP sessions to MPRTP and for modifying MPRTP sessions: in-band and
   out-of-band signaling.

   In-band signaling refers to using mechanisms of RTP/RTCP itself to
   communicate interface addresses, e.g., a dedicated RTCP extensions
   along the lines of the one defined to communicate information about
   the feedback target for RTP over SSM [RFC5760].  In-band signaling
   does not rely on the availability of a separate signaling connection
   and the information flows along the same path as the media streams,
   thus minimizing dependencies.  Moreover, if the media channel is
   secured (e.g., by means of SRTP), the signaling is implicitly
   protected as well if SRTCP encryption and authentication are chosen.
   In-band signaling is also expected to take a direct path to the peer,
   avoiding any signaling overlay-induced indirections and associated
   processing overheads in signaling elements -- avoiding such may be
   especially worthwhile if frequent updates may occur as in the case of
   mobile users.  Finally, RTCP is usually sent sufficiently frequently
   (in point-to-point settings) to provide enough opportunities for
   transmission and (in case of loss) retransmission of the
   corresponding RTCP packets.

   Examples for in-band signaling include RTCP extensions as noted above
   or suitable extensions to STUN [I-D.wing-mmusic-ice-mobility].

   Out-of-band signaling refers to using a separate signaling connection
   (via SIP, RTSP, or HTTP) to exchange interface information, e.g.,
   expressed in SDP.  Clear benefits are that signaling occurs at setup
   time anyway and that experience and SDP syntax (and procedures) are
   available that can be re-used or easily adapted to provide the
   necessary capabilities.  In contrast to RTCP, SDP offers a reliable
   communication channel so that no separate retransmissions logic is
   necessary.  In SDP, especially when combined with ICE, connectivity
   check mechanisms including sophisticated rules are readily available.
   While SDP is not inherently protected, suitable security may need to
   be applied anyway to the basic session setup.

   Examples for out-of-band signaling are dedicated extensions to SDP;
   those may be combined with ICE.




Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   Both types of mechanisms have their pros and cons for middleboxes.
   With in-band signaling, control packets take the same path as the
   media packets and they can be directly inspected by middleboxes so
   that the elements operating on the signaling channel do not need to
   understand new SDP.  With out-of-band signaling, only the middleboxes
   processing the signaling need to be modified and those on the data
   forwarding path can remain untouched.

   Overall, it may appear sensible to provide a combination of both
   mechanisms: out-of-band signaling for session setup and initial
   interface negotiation and in-band signaling to deal with frequent
   changes in interface state (and for the potential case, albeit rather
   theoretical case of MPRTP communication without a signaling channel).

   In its present version, this document explores both options to
   provide a broad understanding of how the corresponding mechanisms
   would look like.

7.2.  Expanding RTP

   RTCP [RFC3550] is generated per media session.  However, with MPRTP,
   the media sender spreads the RTP load across several interfaces.  The
   media sender SHOULD make the path selection, load balancing and fault
   tolerance decisions based on the characteristics of each path.
   Therefore, apart from normal RTP sequence numbers defined in
   [RFC3550], the MPRTP sender MUST add subflow-specific sequence
   numbers to help calculate fractional losses, jitter, RTT, playout
   time, etc., for each path, and a subflow identifier to associate the
   characteristics with a path.  The RTP header extension for MPRTP is
   shown in Section 9.1.

7.3.  Expanding RTCP

   To provide accurate per path information an MPRTP endpoint MUST send
   (SR/RR) report for each unique subflow along with the overall session
   RTCP report.  Therefore, the additional subflow reporting affects the
   RTCP bandwidth and the RTCP reporting interval.  RTCP report
   scheduling for each subflow may cause a problem for RTCP
   recombination and reconstruction in cases when 1) RTCP for a subflow
   is lost, and 2) RTCP for a subflow arrives later than the other
   subflows.  (There may be other cases as well.)

   The sender distributes the media across different paths using the per
   path RTCP reports.  However, this document doesn't cover algorithms
   for congestion control or load balancing.






Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


7.4.  Failure Handling and Teardown

   An MPRTP endpoint MUST keep alive subflows that have been negotiated
   but no media is sent on them.  Moreover, using the information in the
   subflow reports, a sender can monitor an active subflow for failure
   (errors, unreachability, congestion) and decide not to use (make the
   active subflow passive), or teardown the subflow.

   If an interface disappears, the endpoint MUST send an updated
   interface advertisement without the interface and release the the
   associated subflows.

8.  MPRTP Protocol

           Host A                                   Host B
   -----------------------                  -----------------------
   Interface A1   Interface A2            Interface B1   Interface B2
   -----------------------                  -----------------------
       |            |                           |             |
       |            |      (1)                  |             |
       |--------------------------------------->|             |
       |<---------------------------------------|             |
       |            |      (2)                  |             |
       |<=======================================|             |
       |<=======================================|     (3)     |
       |            |      (4)                  |             |
       |<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|             |
       |<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|             |
       |<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|             |
       |            |      (5)                  |             |
       |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->|             |
       |<=======================================|     (6)     |
       |<=======================================|             |
       |            |<========================================|
       |<=======================================|             |
       |            |<========================================|

   Key:
   |  Interface
   ---> Signaling Protocol
   <=== RTP Packets
   - -> RTCP Packet

                       Figure 5: MPRTP New Interface







Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


8.1.  Overview

   The bullet points explain the different steps shown in Figure 5 for
   upgrading a single path multimedia session to multipath session.

      (1) The first two interactions between the hosts represents the
      establishment of a normal RTP session.  This may performed e.g.
      using SIP or RTSP.

      (2) When the RTP session has been established, host B streams
      media using its interface B1 to host A at interface A1.

      (3) Host B supports sending media using MPRTP and becomes aware of
      an additional interface B2.

      (4) Host B advertises the multiple interface addresses.

      (5) Host A supports receiving media using MPRTP and becomes aware
      of an additional interface A2.

      Side note, even if an MPRTP-capable host has only one interface,
      it MUST respond to the advertisement with its single interface.

      (6) Each host receives information about the additional interfaces
      and the appropriate endpoints starts to stream the multimedia
      content using the additional paths.

      If needed, each endpoint will need to independently perform
      connectivity checks (not shown in figure) and ascertain
      reachability before using the paths.

8.1.1.  Gather or Discovering Candidates

   The endpoint periodically polls the operating system or is notified
   when an additional interface appears.  If the endpoint wants to use
   the additional interface for MPRTP it MUST advertise it to the other
   peers.  The endpoint may also use ICE [RFC5245] to gather additional
   candidates.

8.1.2.  NAT Traversal

   After gathering their interface candidates, the endpoints decide
   internally if they wish to perform connectivity checks.

   [note-iceornot]

   If the endpoint chooses to perform connectivity checks then it MUST
   first advertise the gathered candidates as ICE candidates in SDP



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   during session setup and let ICE perform the connectivity checks.  As
   soon as a sufficient number of connectivity checks succeed, the
   endpoint can use the successful candidates to advertise its MPRTP
   interface candidates.

   Alternatively, if the endpoint supports mobility extensions for ICE
   [I-D.wing-mmusic-ice-mobility], it can let the ICE agent gather and
   perform the connectivity checks.  When the connectivity checks
   succeed, the ICE agent should notify the MPRTP layer of these new
   paths (5-tuples), these new paths are then used by MPRTP to send
   media packets depending on the scheduling algorithm.

   If an endpoint supports Interface selection via PCP Flow Extension
   [I-D.reddy-mmusic-ice-best-interface-pcp], it will receive
   notifications when new interfaces become available and additionally
   when the link quality of a currently available interface changes.
   The application can advertise and perform connectivity checks with
   the new interface and in the case of changes in link quality pass the
   information to the scheduling algorithm for better application
   performance.

   [Editors note: The interaction between the RTP agent and ICE agent is
   needed for implementing a scheduling algorithm or congestion control.
   See details of a scheduling algorithm in [ACM-MPRTP].]

8.1.3.  Choosing between In-band (in RTCP) and Out-of-band (in SDP)
        Interface Advertisement

   If there is no media flowing at the moment and the application wants
   to use the interfaces from the start of the session, it should
   advertise them in SDP (See [I-D.singh-mmusic-mprtp-sdp-extension]).
   Alternatively, the endpoint can setup the session as a single path
   media session and upgrade the session to multipath by advertising the
   session in-band (See Section 8.1.4 or
   [I-D.wing-mmusic-ice-mobility]).  Moreover, if an interface appears
   and disappears, the endpoint SHOULD prefer to advertise it in-band
   because the endpoint would not have to wait for a response from the
   other endpoint before starting to use the interface.  However, if
   there is a conflict between an in-band and out-of-band advertisement,
   i.e., the endpoint receives an in-band advertisement while it has a
   pending out-of-band advertisement, or vice versa then the session is
   setup using out-of-band mechanisms.

8.1.4.  In-band Interface Advertisement

   To advertise the multiple interfaces in RTCP, an MPRTP-capable
   endpoint MUST add the MPRTP Interface Advertisement defined in
   Figure 13 with the RTCP Sender Report (SR).  Each unique address is



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   encapsulated in an Interface Advertisement block and contains the IP
   address, RTP and RTCP port addresses.  The Interface Advertisement
   blocks are ordered based on a decreasing priority level.  On
   receiving the MPRTP Interface Advertisement, an MPRTP-capable
   receiver MUST respond with the set of interfaces (subset or all
   available) it wants to use.

   If the sender and receiver have only one interface, then the
   endpoints MUST indicate the negotiated single path IP, RTP port and
   RTCP port addresses.

8.1.5.  Subflow ID Assignment

   After interface advertisements have been exchanged, the endpoint MUST
   associate a Subflow ID to each unique subflow.  Each combination of
   sender and receiver IP addresses and port pairs (5-tuple) is a unique
   subflow.  If the connectivity checks have been performed then the
   endpoint MUST only use the subflows for which the connectivity checks
   have succeeded.

8.1.6.  Active and Passive Subflows

   To send and receive data an endpoint MAY use any number of subflows
   from the set of available subflows.  The subflows that carry media
   data are called active subflows, while those subflows that don't send
   any media packets (fallback paths) are called passive subflows.

   An endpoint MUST multiplex the subflow specific RTP and RTCP packets
   on the same port to keep the NAT bindings alive.  This is inline with
   the recommendation made in RFC6263[RFC6263].  Moreover, if an
   endpoint uses ICE, multiplexing RTP and RTCP reduces the number of
   components from 2 to 1 per media stream.  If no MPRTP or MPRTCP
   packets are received on a particular subflow at a receiver, the
   receiver SHOULD remove the subflow from active and passive lists and
   not send any MPRTCP reports for that subflow.  It may keep the
   bindings in a dead-pool, so that if the 5-tuple or subflow reappears,
   it can quickly reallocate it based on past history.

8.2.  RTP Transmission

   If both endpoints are MPRTP-capable and if they want to use their
   multiple interfaces for sending the media stream then they MUST use
   the MPRTP header extensions.  They MAY use normal RTP with legacy
   endpoints (see Appendix A).

   An MPRTP endpoint sends RTP packets with an MPRTP extension that maps
   the media packet to a specific subflow (see Figure 8).  The MPRTP
   layer SHOULD associate an RTP packet with a subflow based on a



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   scheduling strategy.  The scheduling strategy may either choose to
   augment the paths to create higher throughput or use the alternate
   paths for enhancing resilience or error-repair.  Due to the changes
   in path characteristics, the endpoint should be able change its
   scheduling strategy during an ongoing session.  The MPRTP sender MUST
   also populate the subflow specific fields described in the MPRTP
   extension header (see Section 9.1.1).

   [ACM-MPRTP] describes and evaluates a scheduling algorithm for video
   over multiple interfaces.  The video is encoded at a single target
   bit rate and is evaluated in various network scenarios, as discussed
   in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria].

8.3.  Playout Considerations at the Receiver

   A media receiver, irrespective of MPRTP support or not, should be
   able to playback the media stream because the received RTP packets
   are compliant to [RFC3550], i.e., a non-MPRTP receiver will ignore
   the MPRTP header and still be able to playback the RTP packets.
   However, the variation of jitter and loss per path may affect proper
   playout.  The receiver can compensate for the jitter by modifying the
   playout delay (i.e., by calculating skew across all paths) of the
   received RTP packets.  For example, an adaptive playout algorithm is
   discussed in [ACM-MPRTP].

8.4.  Subflow-specific RTCP Statistics and RTCP Aggregation

   Aggregate RTCP provides the overall media statistics and follows the
   normal RTCP defined in RFC3550 [RFC3550].  However, subflow specific
   RTCP provides the per path media statistics because the aggregate
   RTCP report may not provide sufficient per path information to an
   MPRTP scheduler.  Specifically, the scheduler should be aware of each
   path's RTT and loss-rate, which an aggregate RTCP cannot provide.

   The aggregate RTCP report (i.e., the regularly scheduled RTCP report)
   MUST be sent compounded as described in [RFC5506], however, the
   subflow-specific RTCP reports MAY be sent non-compounded.  Further,
   each subflow and the aggregate RTCP report MUST follow the timing
   rules defined in [RFC4585].

   The RTCP reporting interval is locally implemented and the scheduling
   of the RTCP reports may depend on the the behavior of each path.  For
   instance, the RTCP interval may be different for a passive path than
   an active path to keep port bindings alive.  Additionally, an
   endpoint may decide to share the RTCP reporting bit rate equally
   across all its paths or schedule based on the receiver rate on each
   path.




Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


8.5.  RTCP Transmission

   The sender sends an RTCP SR on each active path.  For each SR the
   receiver gets, it echoes one back to the same IP address-port pair
   that sent the SR.  The receiver tries to choose the symmetric path
   and if the routing is symmetric then the per-path RTT calculations
   will work out correctly.  However, even if the paths are not
   symmetric, the sender would at maximum, under-estimate the RTT of the
   path by a factor of half of the actual path RTT.

9.  Packet Formats

   In this section we define the protocol structures described in the
   previous sections.

9.1.  RTP Header Extension for MPRTP

   The MPRTP header extension is used to distribute a single RTP stream
   over multiple subflows.

   The header conforms to the one-byte RTP header extension defined in
   [RFC5285].  The header extension contains a 16-bit length field that
   counts the number of 32-bit words in the extension, excluding the
   four-octet extension header (therefore zero is a valid length, see
   Section 5.3.1 of [RFC3550] for details).

   The RTP header for each subflow is defined 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|1|  CC   |M|     PT      |       sequence number         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           timestamp                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           synchronization source (SSRC) identifier            |
      +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
      |       0xBE    |    0xDE       |           length=N-1          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   ID  |  LEN  |  MPID |LENGTH |       MPRTP header data       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
      |                             ....                              |
      +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
      |                         RTP payload                           |
      |                             ....                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 6: Generic MPRTP header extension



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


      MPID:

         The MPID field corresponds to the type of MPRTP packet.
         Namely:

    +---------------+--------------------------------------------------+
    |    MPID ID    | Use                                              |
    |     Value     |                                                  |
    +---------------+--------------------------------------------------+
    |      0x0      | Subflow RTP Header. For this case the Length is  |
    |               | set to 4                                         |
    +---------------+--------------------------------------------------+

        Figure 7: RTP header extension values for MPRTP (H-Ext ID)

      length

         The 4-bit length field is the length of extension data in bytes
         not including the H-Ext ID and length fields.  The value zero
         indicates there is no data following.

      MPRTP header data

         Carries the MPID specific data as described in the following
         sub-sections.

9.1.1.  MPRTP RTP Extension for a Subflow

   The RTP header for each subflow is defined below:






















Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


       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         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           timestamp                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           synchronization source (SSRC) identifier            |
      +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
      |       0xBE    |    0xDE       |           length=2            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   ID  | LEN=4 |  0x0  | LEN=4 |          Subflow ID           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Subflow-specific Seq Number  |    Pad (0)    |   Pad (0)     |
      +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
      |                         RTP payload                           |
      |                             ....                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 8: MPRTP header for subflow

      MP ID = 0x0

         Indicates that the MPRTP header extension carries subflow
         specific information.

      length = 4

      Subflow ID: Identifier of the subflow.  Every RTP packet belonging
      to the same subflow carries the same unique subflow identifier.

      Flow-Specific Sequence Number (FSSN): Sequence of the packet in
      the subflow.  Each subflow has its own strictly monotonically
      increasing sequence number space.

9.2.  RTCP Extension for MPRTP (MPRTCP)

   The MPRTP RTCP header extension is used to 1) provide RTCP feedback
   per subflow to determine the characteristics of each path, and 2)
   advertise each interface.











Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


    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|reserved | PT=MPRTCP=211 |             length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     SSRC of packet sender                     |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                 SSRC_1 (SSRC of first source)                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MPRTCP_Type  |  block length |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+         MPRTCP Reports        |
   |                             ...                               |
   |                             ...                               |
   |                             ...                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

     Figure 9: Generic RTCP Extension for MPRTP (MPRTCP) [appended to
                               normal SR/RR]

      MPRTCP: 8 bits

         Contains the constant 211 to identify this as an Multipath RTCP
         packet.

      length: 16 bits

         As described for the RTCP packet (see Section 6.4.1 of the RTP
         specification [RFC3550]), the length of this is in 32-bit words
         minus one, including the header and any padding.

      MPRTCP_Type: 8-bits

         The MPRTCP_Type field corresponds to the type of MPRTP RTCP
         packet.  Namely:

    +---------------+--------------------------------------------------+
    |  MPRTCP_Type  | Use                                              |
    |     Value     |                                                  |
    +---------------+--------------------------------------------------+
    |       0       | Subflow Specific Report                          |
    |       1       | Interface Advertisement (IPv4 Address)           |
    |       2       | Interface Advertisement (IPv4 Address)           |
    |       3       | Interface Advertisement (DNS Address)            |
    +---------------+--------------------------------------------------+

      Figure 10: RTP header extension values for MPRTP (MPRTCP_Type)

      block length: 8-bits



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


         The 8-bit length field is the length of the encapsulated MPRTCP
         reports in 32-bit word length (i.e., length * 4 bytes)
         including the MPRTCP_Type and length fields.  The value zero is
         invalid and the report block MUST be ignored.

      MPRTCP Reports: variable size

         Defined later in 9.2.1 and 9.3.

9.2.1.  MPRTCP Extension for Subflow Reporting

   When sending a report for a specific subflow the sender or receiver
   MUST add only the reports associated with that 5-tuple.  Each subflow
   is reported independently using the following MPRTCP Feedback header.

    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|reserved | PT=MPRTCP=211 |             length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     SSRC of packet sender                     |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                 SSRC_1 (SSRC of first source)                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | MPRTCP_Type=0 |  block length |         Subflow ID #1         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Subflow-specific reports                   |
   |                             ....                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | MPRTCP_Type=0 |  block length |         Subflow ID #2         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Subflow-specific reports                   |
   |                             ....                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 11: MPRTCP Subflow Reporting Header

   MPRTCP_Type: 0

      The value indicates that the encapsulated block is a subflow
      report.

   block length: 8-bits

      The 8-bit length field is the length of the encapsulated subflow-
      specific reports in 32-bit word length not including the
      MPRTCP_Type and length fields.




Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   Subflow ID: 16 bits

      Subflow identifier is the value associated with the subflow the
      endpoint is reporting about.  If it is a sender it MUST use the
      Subflow ID associated with the 5-tuple.  If it is a receiver it
      MUST use the Subflow ID received in the Subflow-specific Sender
      Report.

   Subflow-specific reports: variable

      Subflow-specific report contains all the reports associated with
      the Subflow ID.  For a sender, it MUST include the Subflow-
      specific Sender Report (SSR).  For a receiver, it MUST include
      Subflow-specific Receiver Report (SRR).  Additionally, if the
      receiver supports subflow-specific extension reports then it MUST
      append them to the SRR.

9.2.1.1.  MPRTCP for Subflow-specific SR, RR and XR

   [note-rtcp-reuse]

   Example:





























Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


    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|reserved | PT=MPRTCP=211 |             length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     SSRC of packet sender                     |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                 SSRC_1 (SSRC of first source)                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | MPRTCP_Type=0 |  block length |         Subflow ID #1         |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |V=2|P|    RC   |   PT=SR=200   |             length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         SSRC of sender                        |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |              NTP timestamp, most significant word             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             NTP timestamp, least significant word             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         RTP timestamp                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    subflow's packet count                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     subflow's octet count                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | MPRTCP_Type=0 |  block length |         Subflow ID #2         |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |V=2|P|    RC   |   PT=RR=201   |             length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     SSRC of packet sender                     |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   | fraction lost |       cumulative number of packets lost       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           extended highest sequence number received           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     inter-arrival jitter                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         last SR (LSR)                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   delay since last SR (DLSR)                  |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |               Subflow specific extension reports              |
   |                             ....                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 12: Example of reusing RTCP SR and RR inside an MPRTCP header
   (Bi-directional use-case, in case of uni-directional flow the subflow
                       will only send an SR or RR).



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


9.3.  MPRTCP Extension for Interface advertisement

   This sub-section defines the RTCP header extension for in-band
   interface advertisement by the receiver.  The interface advertisement
   block describes a method to represent IPv4, IPv6 and generic DNS-type
   addresses in a block format.  It is based on the sub-reporting block
   in [RFC5760].  The interface advertisement SHOULD immediately follow
   the Receiver Report.  If the Receiver Report is not present, then it
   MUST be appended to the Sender Report.

   The endpoint MUST advertise the interfaces it wants to use whenever
   an interface appears or disappears and also when it receives an
   Interface Advertisement.

    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|reserved | PT=MPRTCP=211 |             length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     SSRC of packet sender                     |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                 SSRC_1 (SSRC of first source)                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MPRTCP_Type  |  block length |            RTP Port           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Interface Address #1                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MPRTCP_Type  |  block length |            RTP Port           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Interface Address #2                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MPRTCP_Type  |  block length |            RTP Port           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Interface Address #..                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MPRTCP_Type  |  block length |            RTP Port           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Interface Address #m                     |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

       Figure 13: MPRTP Interface Advertisement. (appended to SR/RR)

      MPRTCP_Type: 8 bits

         The MPRTCP_Type corresponds to the type of interface address.
         Namely:

            1: IPv4 address



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


            2: IPv6 address

            3: DNS name

      block length: 8 bits

         The length of the Interface Advertisement block in 32-bit word
         lengths.

            For an IPv4 address, this should be 2 (8 octets including =
            2 + 2 + 4).

            For an IPv6 address, this should be 5 (20 octets = 2 +2 +
            16).

            For a DNS name, the length field indicates the number of
            word lengths making up the address string plus 1 (32-bit
            word for the 2 byte port number and 2 byte header).

      RTP Port: 2 octets

         The port number to which the sender sends RTP data.  A port
         number of 0 is invalid and MUST NOT be used.

      Interface Address: 4 octets (IPv4), 16 octets (IPv6), or n octets
      (DNS name)

         The address to which receivers send feedback reports.  For IPv4
         and IPv6, fixed-length address fields are used.  A DNS name is
         an arbitrary-length string.  The string MAY contain
         Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) domain
         names and MUST be UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded.

10.  RTCP Timing reconsiderations for MPRTCP

   MPRTP endpoints MUST conform to the timing rule imposed in [RFC4585],
   i.e., the total RTCP rate between the participants MUST NOT exceed 5%
   of the media rate.  For each endpoint, a subflow MUST send the
   aggregate and subflow-specific report.  The endpoint SHOULD schedule
   the RTCP reports for the active subflows based on the share of the
   transmitted or received bit rate to the average media bit rate, this
   method ensures fair sharing of the RTCP bandwidth.  Alternatively,
   the endpoint MAY schedule the reports in round-robin.








Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


11.  SDP Considerations

11.1.  Signaling MPRTP Header Extension in SDP

   To indicate the use of the MPRTP header extensions (see Section 9) in
   SDP, the sender MUST use the following URI in extmap: urn:ietf:params
   :rtp-hdrext:mprtp.  This is a media level parameter.  Legacy RTP
   (non-MPRTP) clients will ignore this header extension, but can
   continue to parse and decode the packet (see Appendix A).

   Example:

   v=0
   o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 192.0.2.1
   s=
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
   t=0 0
   m=video 49170 RTP/AVP 98
   a=rtpmap:98 H264/90000
   a=fmtp:98 profile-level-id=42A01E;
   a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:mprtp

11.2.  Signaling MPRTP capability in SDP

   A participant of a media session MUST use SDP to indicate that it
   supports MPRTP.  Not providing this information will make the other
   endpoint ignore the RTCP extensions.

       mprtp-attrib = "a=" "mprtp" [
               SP mprtp-optional-parameter]
               CRLF   ; flag to enable MPRTP

   The endpoint MUST use 'a=mprtp', if it is able to send and receive
   MPRTP packets.  Generally, senders and receivers MUST indicate this
   capability if they support MPRTP and would like to use it in the
   specific media session being signaled.  To exchange the additional
   interfaces, the endpoint SHOULD use the in-band signaling (See
   Section 9.3).  Alternatively, advertise in SDP (See
   [I-D.singh-mmusic-mprtp-sdp-extension]).

   MPRTP endpoint multiplexes RTP and RTCP on a single port, sender MUST
   indicate support by adding "a=rtcp-mux" in SDP [RFC5761].  If an
   endpoint receives an SDP without "a=rtcp-mux" but contains "a=mprtp",
   then the endpoint MUST infer support for multiplexing.

   MPRTP endpoint uses Reduced-Size RTCP [RFC5506] for reporting path
   characterisitcs per subflow (MPRTCP).  An MPRTP endpoint MUST
   indicate support by adding "a=rtcp-rsize" in SDP [RFC5761].  If an



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   endpoint receives an "a=rtcp-rsize" but contains "a=mprtp", then the
   endpoint MUST infer support for Reduced-Size RTCP.

   [note-rtp-rtcp-mux]

11.3.  MPRTP with ICE

   If the endpoints intend to use ICE [RFC5245] for discovering
   interfaces and running connectivity checks then the endpoint MUST
   advertise its ICE candidates in the initial OFFER, as defined in ICE
   [RFC5245].  Thereafter the endpoints run connectivity checks.

   When an endpoint uses ICE's regular nomination [RFC5245] procedure,
   it chooses the best ICE candidate as the default path.  In the case
   of an MPRTP endpoint, if more than one ICE candidate succeeded the
   connectivity checks then an MPRTP endpoint MAY advertise (some of)
   these in-band in RTCP as MPRTP interfaces.

   When an endpoint uses ICE's aggressive nomination [RFC5245]
   procedure, the selected candidate may change as more ICE checks
   complete.  Instead of sending updated offers as additional ICE
   candidates appear (transience), the endpoint it MAY use in-band
   signaling to advertise its interfaces, as defined in Section 9.3.

   If the default interface disappears and the paths used for MPRTP are
   different from the one in the c= and m= lines then the an alternate
   interface for which the ICE checks were successful should be promoted
   to the c= and m= lines in the updated offer.

   When a new interface appears then the application/endpoint should
   internally decide if it wishes to use it and sends an updated offer
   with ICE candidates of the all its interfaces including the new
   interface.  The receiving endpoint responds to the offer with all its
   ICE candidates in the answer and starts connectivity checks between
   all its candidates and the offerer's ICE candidates.  Similarly, the
   initiating endpoint starts connectivity checks between the its
   interfaces (incl. the new interface) and all the received ICE
   candidates in the answer.  If the connectivity checks succeed, the
   initiating endpoint MAY use in-band signaling (See Section 9.3) to
   advertise its new set of interfaces.

11.4.  Increased Throughput

   The MPRTP layer MAY choose to augment paths to increase throughput.
   If the desired media rate exceeds the current media rate, the
   endpoints MUST renegotiate the application specific ("b=AS:xxx")
   [RFC4566] bandwidth.




Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


11.5.  Offer/Answer

   When SDP [RFC4566] is used to negotiate MPRTP sessions following the
   offer/answer model [RFC3264], the "a=mprtp" attribute (see
   Section 11.2) indicates the desire to use multiple interfaces to send
   or receive media data.  The initial SDP offer MUST include this
   attribute at the media level.  If the answerer wishes to also use
   MPRTP, it MUST include a media-level "a=mprtp" attribute in the
   answer.  If the answer does not contain an "a=mprtp" attribute, the
   offerer MUST NOT stream media over multiple paths and the offerer
   MUST NOT advertise additional MPRTP interfaces in-band or out-of-
   band.

   When SDP is used in a declarative manner, the presence of an
   "a=mprtp" attribute signals that the sender can send or receive media
   data over multiple interfaces.  The receiver SHOULD be capable to
   stream media to the multiple interfaces and be prepared to receive
   media from multiple interfaces.

   The following sections shows examples of SDP offer and answer for in-
   band and out-of-band signaling.

11.5.1.  In-band Signaling Example

   The following offer/answer shows that both the endpoints are MPRTP
   capable and SHOULD use in-band signaling for interfaces
   advertisements.

   Offer:
     v=0
     o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 192.0.2.1
     s=
     c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
     t=0 0
     m=video 49170 RTP/AVP 98
     a=rtpmap:98 H264/90000
     a=fmtp:98 profile-level-id=42A01E;
     a=rtcp-mux
     a=mprtp












Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   Answer:
     v=0
     o=bob 2890844528 2890844529 IN IP4 192.0.2.2
     s=
     c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2
     t=0 0
     m=video 4000 RTP/AVP 98
     a=rtpmap:98 H264/90000
     a=fmtp:98 profile-level-id=42A01E;
     a=rtcp-mux
     a=mprtp

   The endpoint MAY now use in-band RTCP signaling to advertise its
   multiple interfaces.  Alternatively, it MAY make another offer with
   the interfaces in SDP (out-of-band signaling)
   [I-D.singh-mmusic-mprtp-sdp-extension].

12.  IANA Considerations

   The following contact information shall be used for all registrations
   in this document:

       Contact:    Varun Singh
                   mailto:varun.singh@iki.fi
                   tel:+358-9-470-24785

   Note to the RFC-Editor: When publishing this document as an RFC,
   please replace "RFC XXXX" with the actual RFC number of this document
   and delete this sentence.

12.1.  MPRTP Header Extension

   This document defines a new extension URI to the RTP Compact Header
   Extensions sub-registry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
   Parameters registry, according to the following data:

       Extension URI:  urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:mprtp
       Description:  Multipath RTP
       Reference:  RFC XXXX

12.2.  MPRTCP Packet Type

   A new RTCP packet format has been registered with the RTCP Control
   Packet type (PT) Registry:







Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


        Name:           MPRTCP
        Long name:      Multipath RTCP
        Value:          211
        Reference:      RFC XXXX.

   This document defines a substructure for MPRTCP packets.  A new sub-
   registry has been set up for the sub-report block type (MPRTCP_Type)
   values for the MPRTCP packet, with the following registrations
   created initially:

           Name:           Subflow Specific Report
           Long name:      Multipath RTP Subflow Specific Report
           Value:          0
           Reference:      RFC XXXX.

           Name:           IPv4 Address
           Long name:      IPv4 Interface Address
           Value:          1
           Reference:      RFC XXXX.

           Name:           IPv6 Address
           Long name:      IPv6 Interface Address
           Value:          2
           Reference:      RFC XXXX.

           Name:           DNS Name
           Long name:      DNS Name indicating Interface Address
           Value:          3
           Reference:      RFC XXXX.

   Further values may be registered on a first come, first served basis.
   For each new registration, it is mandatory that a permanent, stable,
   and publicly accessible document exists that specifies the semantics
   of the registered parameter as well as the syntax and semantics of
   the associated sub-report block.  The general registration procedures
   of [RFC4566] apply.

12.3.  SDP Attributes

   This document defines a new SDP attribute, "mprtp", within the
   existing IANA registry of SDP Parameters.

12.3.1.  "mprtp" attribute

   o  Attribute Name: MPRTP

   o  Long Form: Multipath RTP




Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   o  Type of Attribute: media-level

   o  Charset Considerations: The attribute is not subject to the
      charset attribute.

   o  Purpose: This attribute is used to indicate support for Multipath
      RTP.  It can also provide one of many possible interfaces for
      communication.  These interface addresses may have been validated
      using ICE procedures.

   o  Appropriate Values: See Section 11.2 of RFC XXXX.

13.  Security Considerations

   TBD

   All drafts are required to have a security considerations section.
   See RFC 3552 [RFC3552] for a guide.

14.  Acknowledgements

   Varun Singh, Saba Ahsan, and Teemu Karkkainen are supported by
   Trilogy (http://www.trilogy-project.org), a research project
   (ICT-216372) partially funded by the European Community under its
   Seventh Framework Program.  The views expressed here are those of the
   author(s) only.  The European Commission is not liable for any use
   that may be made of the information in this document.

   The work of Varun Singh and Joerg Ott from Aalto University has been
   partially supported by the European Institute of Innovation and
   Technology (EIT) ICT Labs activity RCLD 11882.

   Thanks to Roni Even , Miguel A. Garcia , Ralf Globisch , Christer
   Holmberg , and Frederic Maze for providing valuable feedback on
   earlier versions of this draft.

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.






Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   [RFC5760]  Ott, J., Chesterfield, J., and E. Schooler, "RTP Control
              Protocol (RTCP) Extensions for Single-Source Multicast
              Sessions with Unicast Feedback", RFC 5760, February 2010.

   [RFC5245]  Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
              (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
              Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April
              2010.

   [RFC5285]  Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "A General Mechanism for RTP
              Header Extensions", RFC 5285, July 2008.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC5506]  Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size
              Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities
              and Consequences", RFC 5506, April 2009.

   [RFC4585]  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.

   [RFC5761]  Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
              Control Packets on a Single Port", RFC 5761, April 2010.

15.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July
              2003.

   [RFC6182]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Barre, S., and J.
              Iyengar, "Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP
              Development", RFC 6182, March 2011.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
              4960, September 2007.

   [RFC5533]  Nordmark, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming
              Shim Protocol for IPv6", RFC 5533, June 2009.

   [RFC5117]  Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", RFC 5117,
              January 2008.





Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis]
              Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., Lanphier, R., Westerlund, M.,
              and M. Stiemerling, "Real Time Streaming Protocol 2.0
              (RTSP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-40 (work in
              progress), February 2014.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June
              2002.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC6263]  Marjou, X. and A. Sollaud, "Application Mechanism for
              Keeping Alive the NAT Mappings Associated with RTP / RTP
              Control Protocol (RTCP) Flows", RFC 6263, June 2011.

   [I-D.singh-mmusic-mprtp-sdp-extension]
              Singh, V., Ott, J., Karkkainen, T., Globisch, R., and T.
              Schierl, "Multipath RTP (MPRTP) attribute in Session
              Description Protocol", draft-singh-mmusic-mprtp-sdp-
              extension-03 (work in progress), January 2014.

   [I-D.reddy-mmusic-ice-best-interface-pcp]
              Reddy, T., Wing, D., Steeg, B., Penno, R., and V. Varun,
              "Improving ICE Interface Selection Using Port Control
              Protocol (PCP) Flow Extension", draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-
              best-interface-pcp-00 (work in progress), October 2013.

   [I-D.wing-mmusic-ice-mobility]
              Wing, D., Reddy, T., Patil, P., and P. Martinsen,
              "Mobility with ICE (MICE)", draft-wing-mmusic-ice-
              mobility-06 (work in progress), February 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria]
              Singh, V. and J. Ott, "Evaluating Congestion Control for
              Interactive Real-time Media", draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-
              criteria-00 (work in progress), January 2014.

   [ACM-MPRTP]
              Singh, V., Ahsan, S., and J. Ott, "MPRTP: multipath
              considerations for real-time media", in Proc. of ACM
              Multimedia Systems, MMSys, 2013.



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


Appendix A.  Interoperating with Legacy Applications

   Some legacy endpoints may abort processing incoming packets, if they
   are received from different source address.  This may occur due to
   the loop detection algorithm.  Additionally, it is also possible for
   the receiver to reset processing of the stream if the jump in packet
   sequence numbers received over multiple interface is large.  Both of
   these errors are based on implementation-specific details.

   An MPRTP sender can use its multiple interfaces to send media to a
   legacy RTP client.  The legacy receiver will ignore the subflow RTP
   header extension and the receiver's de-jitter buffer will attempt to
   compensate for any mismatch in per-path latency.  However, the
   receiver will only send the overall or aggregate RTCP report which
   may be insufficient for an MPRTP sender to adequately schedule
   packets over multiple paths or detect if a path disappeared.

   An MPRTP receiver can only use one of its interface when
   communicating with a legacy sender.

Appendix B.  Change Log

   Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to
   publication as an RFC.

B.1.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-09

   o  Editorial updates based on review comments.

   o  Clarified use of a=rtcp-rsize.

   o  Fixed bug in block length of interface advertisements.

B.2.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-08

   o  Added reference to use of PCP for discovering new interfaces.

B.3.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-06 and -07

   o  Added reference to Mobility ICE.

B.4.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-05

   o  SDP extensions moved to draft-singh-mmusic-mprtp-sdp-extension-00.
      Kept only the basic 'a=mprtp' attribute in this document.

   o  Cleaned up ICE procedures for advertising only using in-band
      signaling.



Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


B.5.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-04

   o  Fixed missing 0xBEDE header in MPRTP header format.

   o  Removed connectivity checks and keep-alives from in-band
      signaling.

   o  MPRTP and MPRTCP are multiplexed on a single port.

   o  MPRTCP packet headers optimized.

   o  Made ICE optional

   o  Updated Sections: 7.1.2, 8.1.x, 11.2, 11.4, 11.6.

   o  Added how to use MPRTP in RTSP (Section 12).

   o  Updated IANA Considerations section.

B.6.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-03

   o  Added this change log.

   o  Updated section 6, 7 and 8 based on comments from MMUSIC.

   o  Updated section 11 (SDP) based on comments of MMUSIC.

   o  Updated SDP examples with ICE and non-ICE in out-of-band signaling
      scenario.

   o  Added Appendix A on interop with legacy.

   o  Updated IANA Considerations section.

B.7.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-02

   o  MPRTCP protocol extensions use only one PT=210, instead of 210 and
      211.

   o  RTP header uses 1-byte extension instead of 2-byte.

   o  Added section on RTCP Interval Calculations.

   o  Added "mprtp-interface" attribute in SDP considerations.







Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


B.8.  Changes in draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp-01

   o  Added MPRTP and MPRTCP protocol extensions and examples.

   o  WG changed from -avt to -avtcore.

Editorial Comments

[note-iceornot] Editor: Legacy applications do not require ICE for
                session establishment, therefore, MPRTP should not
                require it as well.

[note-rtcp-reuse] Editor: inside the context of subflow specific reports
                  can we reuse the payload type code for Sender Report
                  (PT=200), Receiver Report (PT=201), Extension Report
                  (PT=207).  Transport and Payload specific RTCP
                  messages are session specific and SHOULD be used as
                  before.

[note-rtp-rtcp-mux] Editor: If a=mprtp is indicated, does the endpoint
                    need to indicate a=rtcp-mux and a=rtcp-rsize?
                    because MPRTP mandates the use of RTP and RTCP
                    multiplexing, and Reduced-Size RTCP.

Authors' Addresses

   Varun Singh
   Aalto University
   School of Electrical Engineering
   Otakaari 5 A
   Espoo, FIN  02150
   Finland

   Email: varun@comnet.tkk.fi
   URI:   http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/


   Teemu Karkkainen
   Aalto University
   School of Electrical Engineering
   Otakaari 5 A
   Espoo, FIN  02150
   Finland

   Email: teemuk@comnet.tkk.fi






Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft                Multipath RTP                    June 2014


   Joerg Ott
   Aalto University
   School of Electrical Engineering
   Otakaari 5 A
   Espoo, FIN  02150
   Finland

   Email: jo@comnet.tkk.fi


   Saba Ahsan
   Aalto University
   School of Electrical Engineering
   Otakaari 5 A
   Espoo, FIN  02150
   Finland

   Email: saba.ahsan@aalto.fi


   Lars Eggert
   NetApp
   Sonnenallee 1
   Kirchheim  85551
   Germany

   Phone: +49 151 12055791
   Email: lars@netapp.com
   URI:   http://eggert.org/






















Singh, et al.            Expires January 1, 2015               [Page 39]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/