[Jingle] ICE/Raw UDP Candidate IDs and Generations
Paul Witty
paulrw at codian.com
Wed Apr 22 08:37:01 CDT 2009
I'm somewhat unsure about the use of IDs and generations for candidates
in both ICE and Raw UDP.
For Raw UDP, there is only one candidate per component per channel, so
why do we need an additional identifier attribute? And if we want to
switch to a different IP/Port, is that just a new generation of
candidate with the same ID, or a new candidate with a different ID and
generation? I'd favour dropping either the generation or the ID
attribute, as both seems redundant.
With ICE UDP, the idea that you can modify candidates in-use mid-call by
declaring a new generation of that candidate seems like a bad idea. The
whole point of ICE is to guarantee that, once candidates have been
chosen, media can flow. If one end can then modify the chosen
candidate, this may no longer be true. If a switch to a new address is
required, this is best done by offering a new candidate to the far end,
which will then be tested using ICE, and a switch to this new candidate
made if appropriate.
--
Paul
More information about the Jingle
mailing list