[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-codec-interactions

Network Working Group                                          M. Zanaty
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track                                V. Singh
Expires: January 6, 2016                                Aalto University
                                                           S. Nandakumar
                                                                   Cisco
                                                               Z. Sarkar
                                                             Ericsson AB
                                                           July 05, 2015


     Congestion Control and Codec interactions in RTP Applications
              draft-zanaty-rmcat-cc-codec-interactions-00

Abstract

   Interactive real-time media applications that use the Real-time
   Transport Protocol (RTP) over the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) must
   use congestion control techniques above the UDP layer since it
   provides none.  This memo describes the interactions and conceptual
   interfaces necessary between the application components that relate
   to congestion control, specifically the media codec control layer,
   and the components dedicated to congestion control functions.

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 6, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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



Zanaty, et al.           Expires January 6, 2016                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                     i3c                         July 2015


   (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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Key Words for Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Conceptual Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Implementation Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Codec - CC Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Allowed Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Media Elasticity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Startup Ramp  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.4.  Delay Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.5.  Loss Tolerance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.6.  Forward Error Correction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.7.  Probing for Available Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.8.  Throughput Sensitivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.9.  Rate Stability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Interactive real-time media applications most commonly use RTP
   [RFC3550] over UDP [RFC0768].  Since UDP provides no form of
   congestion control, which is essential for any application deployed
   on the Internet, these RTP applications have historically implemented
   one of the following options at the application layer to address
   their congestion control requirements.

   o  For media with relatively low packet rates and bit rates, such as
      many speech codecs, some applications use a simple form of
      congestion control that stops transmission permanently or
      temporarily after observing significant packet loss over a
      significant period of time, similar to the RTP circuit breakers
      [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers].





Zanaty, et al.           Expires January 6, 2016                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                     i3c                         July 2015


   o  Some applications have no explicit congestion control, despite the
      clear requirements in RTP and its profiles AVP [RFC3551] and AVPF
      [RFC4585], under the expectation that users will terminate media
      flows that are significantly impaired by congestion (in essence,
      human circuit breakers).

   o  For media with substantially higher packet rates and bit rates,
      such as many video codecs, various non-standard congestion control
      techniques are often used to adapt transmission rate based on
      receiver feedback.

   o  Some experimental applications use standardized techniques such as
      TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) [RFC5348].  However, for various
      reasons, these have not been widely deployed.

   The RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques (RMCAT) working group
   was chartered to standardize appropriate and effective congestion
   control for RTP applications.  It is expected such applications will
   migrate from the above historical solutions to the RMCAT solution(s).

   The RMCAT requirements [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements] include low
   delay, reasonably high throughput, fast reaction to capacity changes
   including routing or interface changes, stability without over-
   reaction or oscillation, fair bandwidth sharing with other instances
   of itself and TCP flows, sharing information across multiple flows
   when possible [I-D.welzl-rmcat-coupled-cc], and performing as well or
   better in networks which support Active Queue Management (AQM),
   Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN), or Differentiated Services
   Code Points (DSCP).

   In order to meet these requirements, interactions are necessary
   between the application's congestion controller, the RTP layer, media
   codecs, other components, and the underlying UDP/IP network stack.
   This memo attempts to present a conceptual model of the various
   interfaces based on a simplified application decomposition.  This
   memo discusses interactions between the congestion control and codec
   control layer in a typical RTP Application.

   Note that RTP can also operate over other transports with integrated
   congestion control such as TCP [RFC5681] and DCCP [RFC4340], but that
   is beyond the scope of RMCAT and this memo.

2.  Key Words for Requirements

   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].




Zanaty, et al.           Expires January 6, 2016                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                     i3c                         July 2015


3.  Conceptual Model

   It is useful to decompose an RTP application into several components
   to facilitate understanding and discussion of where congestion
   control functions operate, and how they interface with the other
   components.  The conceptual model in Figure 1 consists of the
   following components.


               +----------------------------+
               |       +-----Config-----+   |
               |       |       |        |   |
               |       |     Codec      |   |
               |       |     | | |      |   |
               | APP   +---RTP | RTCP---+   |
               |       |     | | |          |
               |       |     | | |          |
               |       +---Congestion-------|---Shared
               |            Control         |   State
               +----------------------------+
               |
               +----------------------------+
               | Network      UDP           |
               | Stack         |            |
               |              IP            |
               +----------------------------+

                       Figure 1


   o  APP: Application containing one or more RTP streams and the
      corresponding media codecs and congestion controllers.  For
      example, a WebRTC browser.

   o  Config: Configuration specified by the application that provides
      the media and transport parameters, RTP and RTCP parameters and
      extensions, and congestion control parameters.  For example, a
      WebRTC Javascript application may use the 'constraints' API to
      affect the media configuration, and SDP applications may negotiate
      the media and transport parameters with the remote peer.  This
      determines the initial static configuration negotiated in session
      establishment.  The dynamic state may differ due to congestion or
      other factors, but still must conform to limits established in the
      config.

   o  Codec: Media encoder/decoder or other source/sink for the RTP
      payload.  The codec may be, for example, a simple monaural audio
      format, a complex scalable video codec with several dependent



Zanaty, et al.           Expires January 6, 2016                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                     i3c                         July 2015


      layers, or a source/sink with no live encoding/decoding such as a
      mixer which selectively switches and forwards streams rather than
      mixes media.

   o  RTP: Standard RTP stack functions, including media packetization /
      de-packetization and header processing, but excluding existing
      extensions and possible new extensions specific to congestion
      control (CC) such as absolute timestamps or relative transmission
      time offsets in RTP header extensions.  RTCP: Standard RTCP
      functions, including sender reports, receiver reports, extended
      reports, circuit breakers [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers],
      feedback messages such as NACK [RFC4585] and codec control
      messages such as TMMBR [RFC5104], but excluding existing
      extensions and possible new extensions specific to congestion
      control (CC) such as REMB [I-D.alvestrand-rmcat-remb] (for
      receiver-side CC), ACK (for sender-side CC), absolute and/or
      relative timestamps (for sender-side or receiver-side CC), etc.

   o  Congestion Control: All functions directly responsible for
      congestion control, including possible new RTP/RTCP extensions,
      send rate computation (for sender-side CC), receive rate
      computation (for receiver-side CC), other statistics, and control
      of the UDP sockets including packet scheduling for traffic
      shaping/pacing.

   o  Shared State: Storage and exchange of congestion control state for
      multiple flows within the application and beyond it.

   o  Network Stack: The platform's underlying network functions,
      usually part of the Operating System (OS), containing the UDP
      socket interface and other network functions such as ECN, DSCP,
      physical interface events, interface-level traffic shaping and
      packet scheduling, etc.  This is usually part of the Operating
      System, often within the kernel; however, user-space network
      stacks and components are also possible.

4.  Implementation Model

   There are advantages and drawbacks to implementing congestion control
   in the application layer.  It avoids platform dependencies and allows
   for rapid experimentation, evolution and optimization for each
   application.  However, it also puts the burden on all applications,
   which raises the risks of improper or divergent implementations.  One
   motivation of this memo is to mitigate such risks by giving proper
   guidance on how the application components relating to congestion
   control should interact.





Zanaty, et al.           Expires January 6, 2016                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                     i3c                         July 2015


   Another drawback of congestion control in the application layer is
   that any decomposition, including the one presented in Figure 1, is
   purely conceptual and illustrative, since implementations have
   differing designs and decompositions.  Conversely, this can be viewed
   as an advantage to distribute congestion control functions wherever
   expedient without rigid interfaces.  For example, they may be
   distributed within the RTP/RTCP stack itself, so the separate
   components in Figure 1 are combined into a single RTP+RTCP+CC
   component as shown in Figure 2.

               +----------------------------+
               |       +-----Config         |
               |       |       |            |
               |       |     Codec          |
               | APP   |       |            |
               |       +---RTP+RTCP+CC------|---Shared
               +----------------------------+   State
                               |
               +----------------------------+
               | Network      UDP           |
               | Stack         |            |
               |              IP            |
               +----------------------------+

                       Figure 2



5.  Codec - CC Interactions

   The following subsections identify the necessary interactions between
   the Codec and congestion control layer interfaces that needs to be
   considered important

5.1.  Allowed Rate

   Allowed Rate (from CC to Codec): The max transmit rate allowed over
   the next time interval.  The time interval may be specified or may
   use a default.  The rate may be specified in bytes or packets or
   both.  The rate must never exceed permanent limits established in
   session signaling such as the SDP bandwidth attribute [RFC4566] nor
   temporary limits in RTCP such as TMMBR [RFC5104] or REMB
   [I-D.alvestrand-rmcat-remb].  This is the most important interface
   among all components, and is always required in any RMCAT solution.
   In the simplest possible solution, it may be the only CC interface
   required.





Zanaty, et al.           Expires January 6, 2016                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                     i3c                         July 2015


5.2.  Media Elasticity

   Media Elasticity (from Codec to CC): Many live media encoders are
   highly elastic, often able to achieve any target bit rate within a
   wide range, by adapting the media quality.  For example, a video
   encoder may support any bit rate within a range of a few tens or
   hundreds of kbps up to several Mbps, with rate changes registering as
   fast as the next video frame, although there may be limitations in
   the frequency of changes.  Other encoders may be less elastic,
   supporting a narrower rate range, coarser granularity of rate steps,
   slower reaction to rate changes, etc.  Other media, particularly some
   audio codecs, may be fully inelastic with a single fixed rate.  CC
   can beneficially use codec elasticity, if provided, to plan Allowed
   Rate changes, especially when there are multiple flows sharing CC
   state and bandwidth.

5.3.  Startup Ramp

   Startup Ramp (from Codec to CC, and from CC to Codec): Startup is an
   important moment in a conversation.  Rapid rate adaptation during
   startup is therefore important.  The codec should minimize its
   startup media rate as much as possible without adversely impacting
   the user experience, and support a strategy for rapid rate ramp.  The
   CC should allow the highest startup media rate as possible without
   adversely impacting network conditions, and also support rapid rate
   ramp until stabilizing on the available bandwidth.  Startup can be
   viewed as a negotiation between the codec and the CC.  The codec
   requests a startup rate and ramp, and the CC responds with the
   allowable parameters which may be lower/slower.  The RMCAT
   requirements also include the possibility of bandwidth history to
   further accelerate or even eliminate startup ramp time.  While this
   is highly desirable from an application viewpoint, it may be less
   acceptable to network operators, since it is in essence a gamble on
   current congestion state matching historical state, with the
   potential for significant congestion contribution if the gamble was
   wrong.  Note that startup can often commence before user interaction
   or conversation to reduce the chance of clipped media.

5.4.  Delay Tolerance

   Delay Tolerance (from Codec to CC): An ideal CC will always minimize
   delay and target zero.  However, real solutions often need a real
   non-zero delay tolerance.  The codec should provide an absolute delay
   tolerance, perhaps expressed as an impairment factor to mix with
   other metrics.






Zanaty, et al.           Expires January 6, 2016                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                     i3c                         July 2015


5.5.  Loss Tolerance

   Loss Tolerance (from Codec to CC): An ideal CC will always minimize
   packet loss and target zero.  However, real solutions often need a
   real non-zero loss tolerance.  The codec should provide an absolute
   loss tolerance, perhaps expressed as an impairment factor to mix with
   other metrics.  Note this is unrecoverable post-repair loss after
   retransmission or forward error correction.

5.6.  Forward Error Correction

   Forward Error Correction (FEC): Simple FEC schemes like XOR Parity
   codes [RFC5109] may not handle consecutive or burst loss well.  More
   complex FEC schemes like Reed-Solomon [RFC6865] or Raptor [RFC6330]
   codes are more effective at handling bursty loss.  The sensitivity to
   packet loss therefore depends on the media (source) encoding as well
   as the FEC (channel) encoding, and this sensitivity may differ for
   different loss patterns like random, periodic, or consecutive loss.
   Expressing this sensitivity to the congestion controller may help it
   choose the right balance between optimizing for throughput versus low
   loss.

5.7.  Probing for Available Bandwidth

   FEC can also be used to probe for additional available bandwidth, if
   the application desires a higher target rate than the current rate.
   FEC is preferable to synthetic probes since any contribution to
   congestion by the FEC probe will not impact the post-repair loss rate
   of the source media flow while synthetic probes may adversely affect
   the loss rate.  Note that any use of FEC or retransmission must
   ensure that the total flow of all packets including FEC,
   retransmission and original media never exceeds the Allowed Rate.

5.8.  Throughput Sensitivity

   Throughput Sensitivity (from Codec to CC): An ideal CC will always
   maximize throughput.  However, real solutions often need a trade-off
   between throughput and other metrics such as delay or loss.  The
   codec should provide throughput sensitivity, perhaps expressed as an
   impairment factor (for low throughputs) to mix with other metrics.

5.9.  Rate Stability

   Rate Stability (from Codec to CC): The CC algorithm must strike a
   balance between rate stability and fast reaction to changes in
   available bandwidth.  The codec should provide its preference for
   rate stability versus fast and frequent reaction to rate changes,




Zanaty, et al.           Expires January 6, 2016                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                     i3c                         July 2015


   perhaps expressed as an impairment factor (for high rate variance
   over short timescales) to mix with other metrics.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The RMCAT design team discussions contributed to this memo.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.alvestrand-rmcat-remb]
              Alvestrand, H., "RTCP message for Receiver Estimated
              Maximum Bitrate", draft-alvestrand-rmcat-remb-03 (work in
              progress), October 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers]
              Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control:
              Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", draft-ietf-
              avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-10 (work in progress), March
              2015.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]
              Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
              "Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
              Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-
              negotiation-22 (work in progress), June 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements]
              Jesup, R. and Z. Sarker, "Congestion Control Requirements
              for Interactive Real-Time Media", draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-
              requirements-09 (work in progress), December 2014.

   [I-D.welzl-rmcat-coupled-cc]
              Welzl, M., Islam, S., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled congestion
              control for RTP media", draft-welzl-rmcat-coupled-cc-05
              (work in progress), June 2015.

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              August 1980.

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




Zanaty, et al.           Expires January 6, 2016                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                     i3c                         July 2015


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

   [RFC3551]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
              Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
              July 2003.

   [RFC4340]  Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
              Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.

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

   [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.

   [RFC5104]  Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and B. Burman,
              "Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile
              with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, February 2008.

   [RFC5109]  Li, A., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
              Correction", RFC 5109, December 2007.

   [RFC5348]  Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP
              Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", RFC
              5348, September 2008.

   [RFC5450]  Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "Transmission Time Offsets in
              RTP Streams", RFC 5450, March 2009.

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

   [RFC5681]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
              Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.

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

   [RFC6330]  Luby, M., Shokrollahi, A., Watson, M., Stockhammer, T.,
              and L. Minder, "RaptorQ Forward Error Correction Scheme
              for Object Delivery", RFC 6330, August 2011.





Zanaty, et al.           Expires January 6, 2016               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                     i3c                         July 2015


   [RFC6865]  Roca, V., Cunche, M., Lacan, J., Bouabdallah, A., and K.
              Matsuzono, "Simple Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction
              (FEC) Scheme for FECFRAME", RFC 6865, February 2013.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

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

Authors' Addresses

   Mo Zanaty
   Cisco

   Email: mzanaty@cisco.com


   Varun Singh
   Aalto University

   Email: varun@comnet.tkk.fi


   Suhas Nandakumar
   Cisco

   Email: snandaku@cisco.com


   Zaheduzzaman Sarker
   Ericsson AB

   Email: zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com















Zanaty, et al.           Expires January 6, 2016               [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/