Galène videoconferencing server discussion list archives
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean DuBois <>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <>
Cc: T H Panton <>, Dave Taht <>,
Subject: [Galene] Re: using up more ports in ipv6 for better congestion control
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 10:17:38 -0400
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 01:19:47PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Tim is right about everything, as usual.
> Tim said:
> >> "It is still possible. Just set bundle-policy to max-compat and you'll
> >> get one stream for audio and one for video.
> This mode of operation is not currently supported by Pion.
> Tim also said:
> > Oh, no, the congestion control is _very_ much alive in webRTC but under
> > guise of bandwidth estimation - The ‘simplest' is google’s REMB RTCP
> > message which basically looks at the arrival time of packets and uses
> > any _lengthening_ in the tof to deduce the onset of additional buffering
> > in the path.
> Yes.  Galène implements both REMB and loss-based congestion control in the
> sender->SFU direction, and just loss-based in the SFU->receiver direction.
> Implementing REMB is on my to-do list, but I've got more important things
> to do.
> Dave said:
> >> I am also under the impression that the congestion control
> >> notifications in rtcp are essentially obsolete in the rfc, mandating a
> >> 500ms interval instead of something sane, like a frame?
> You're speaking about the loss-based congestion controller, which is used
> in combination with the delay-based controller that Tim is referring to.
> The 500ms interval is the default, but nothing prevents the receiver from
> sending more frequent feedback, for example just after a loss episode.
> (Galène doesn't currently do that.)
> Tim said:
> > Transport CC tries to expand this to apply to all the streams muxed over
> > a port by adding an RTP header extension with an accurate (NTP) clock in
> > it.
> I still don't understand why Transport-wide CC (TWCC) is better than REMB.
> In my view, it's just moving the REMB congestion controller from the
> receiver to the sender, which requires huge amounts of timely per-packet
> feedback.
> Tim, I'd be very grateful if you could explain what advantages TWCC has
> over REMB.  For now, I'm sticking with REMB.

TWCC gives you the interarrival time of packets. You also get this with
abs-send-time and do REMB. I would be interested to know the math of
data costs of abs-send-time vs TWCC (reference time + deltas)

With TWCC the sender knows the metadata of lost packets. If you lose a packet
with REMB you don't know the send time or the size of the packet. That
seems like it could be useful information?

> > I realise this is anathema to TCP folks, it certainly came as a shock to me
> It depends on your background, I guess.  It was fairly natural for me, but
> then I've been brought up on the litterature on ECN on the one hand and
> TCP-Vegas on the other, both of which aim to perform congestion control
> without any packet drops.
> Ceterum autem censeo that Dave is right, and that we should be working on
> ECN support in WebRTC.

Getting things into Chromium has been hard for me. If ECN gets
acceptance that would be amazing. My mindset is that TWCC is most
effort/least reward.

Pion just got a Network Conditioner so I am hoping to put a basic TWCC
driven congestion controller in pion/transport. A few papers were
published on Google Congestion Control. The code [0] is nicely split up
though (Delay, Loss based BWE all have their own classes)

> -- Juliusz


  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-15 14:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-10 15:15 [Galene] " Dave Taht
2021-07-10 15:19 ` [Galene] " Dave Taht
2021-07-10 16:36 ` T H Panton
2021-07-10 16:48   ` Dave Taht
2021-07-11 11:19   ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-07-15 14:17     ` Sean DuBois [this message]
2021-07-16  1:36       ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-07-16 14:25         ` Sean DuBois
2021-07-15 16:26     ` T H Panton
2021-07-16  1:37       ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-07-16 14:46         ` T H Panton
2021-07-16 17:48           ` Juliusz Chroboczek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Galène videoconferencing server discussion list archives

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V1 galene galene/ \
	public-inbox-index galene

Example config snippet for mirrors.

AGPL code for this site: git clone