From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1610378221; bh=vVxErBVdDLOmZucmTWRcPNuNcoxowm3pWjEw19vzJ+I=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=mWK0JvX9oZ+nuKOep876WB5dlGEZf8evSnOiom8taNbKqEza4qBLeXnqSGTq+YwwM vDGHhCU8Cw1kht4w+GLjVVOgRBCK2483nZS73g46SLQwfiYjeAbgzHpQi/5rJSUqOU w8TXP4Djd0Azt5xkbfplpauXEi729cVyGiWpUU0lacc+7rgjsJh+R8uLZKry7C7H1U iphEEn7QN7J6llwyoXH63SwYXfljx/x2bHDy8lyo+nVrMuyLMPcvQHsM8V0igUrZnd PZ8tFc10O2MgnjgA/exX2+qS1rIeptMWcsgKnxGCl29n7iBWmSegyXle+7pWHtJ5os Jnlt3aoRWnjSQ== To: Juliusz Chroboczek In-Reply-To: <871rerlhjm.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <875z485swt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87wnwnha9w.fsf@toke.dk> <87v9c77e20.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87turrh6y2.fsf@toke.dk> <87mtxj789e.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87o8hzgr4j.fsf@toke.dk> <871rev6w4a.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87im87gdy3.fsf@toke.dk> <87wnwmnsj9.wl-jch@irif.fr> <877dokhpja.fsf@toke.dk> <87lfd04ye5.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87eeismnwy.fsf@toke.dk> <871rerlhjm.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:17:01 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87ft37jyfm.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID-Hash: V7V3RXD3T3YANKPHV2RUH26EOTY3RSQF X-Message-ID-Hash: V7V3RXD3T3YANKPHV2RUH26EOTY3RSQF X-MailFrom: toke@toke.dk X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; suspicious-header CC: galene@lists.galene.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.2 Precedence: list Subject: [Galene] Re: Congestion control and WebRTC [was: Logging] List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Gal=C3=A8ne_videoconferencing_server_discussion_list?= Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >>>> In the presence of an FQ-CoDel'ed bottleneck it may be better to put >>>> audio and video on two separate 5-tuples: > >>> Uh-huh. I'll send you a patch to do that, in case you find the time to >>> test it. > >> Sounds good, thanks! > > It turns out that there's no API to disable bundling, and it's not > immediately obvious how to achieve that through SDP munging, so doing that > would require somewhat more hacking than I'm willing to do right now. Alright, fair enough. Let's leave this in the mental "things it would be nice to do at some point" pile, then :) -Toke