Can someone please clarify the difference between iceConnectionstate:completed vs iceConnectionstate:connected.
When I connect to browsers with webrtc I am able to exchange data using datachannel but for some reason the the iceConnectionstate on browser that made the offer reaming completed wheres the browser that accepted the offers changes to connected.
Any idea if this is normal?
In short:
connected: Found a working candidate pair, but still performing connectivity checks to find a better one.
completed: Found a working candidate pair and done performing connectivity checks.
For most purposes, you can probably treat the connected/completed states as the same thing.
Note that, as mentioned by Ajay, there are some notable difference between how the standard defines the states and how they're implemented in Chrome. The main ones that come to mind:
There's no "end-of-candidates" signaling, so none of those parts of the candidate state definitions are implemented. This means if a remote candidate arrives late, it's possible to go from "completed" back to "connected" without an ICE restart. Though I assume this is rare in practice.
The ICE state is actually a combination ICE+DTLS state (see: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=6145). This is because it was implemented before there was such thing as "RTCPeerConnectionState". This can lead to confusion if there's actually a DTLS-level issue, since the only way to really notice is to look in a native Chrome log.
We definitely plan on fixing all the discrepancies. But for a while we held off on it because the standard was still in flux. And right now our priority is more on implementing unified plan SDP and the RtpSender/RtpReceiver APIs.
ICE Connection state transition is a bit tricky, with below flow diagram you can get clear idea on possible transitions.
In simple words:
new/checking: Not at connected
connected/completed: Media path is available
disconnected/failed: Media path is not available (Whatever data you are sending on data channel won't reach other end)
Read full summary here
Still WebRTC team is working hard to make it stable & spec compliant.
Current chrome behavior is confusing so i filed a bug, you can star it to get notified.
Related
We’ve been using the Tokbox platform for several months now with a Javascript web-client as well as an Android phone client, where sessions and connections are managed by a Python server. While integration and bring-up went well on both ends (client and server), we continue to encounter problems with the in-session audio and video experience.
Sessions are always routed and always between two participants only, with much use of a collaborative editor.
The in-session experience is like a coin toss: we never know how it’s going to go, and that’s becoming a business threat.
Web-Client: A/V Resources
The most common problem is the acquisition of audio and/or video: at the beginning of a session, one or the other participants may have problems hearing or seeing the other. Allocating a new connection to establish new streams does not fix that, nor does restarting the browser.
Question: What’s the recommended way to detect possible resource locks (e.g. does another application hog the camera/microphone)?
Web-Client: Network
Bandwidth and packet loss are a challenge, for example this inspector graph:
Audio and video of both participants is all over the place, and while we can not control the network connections the web-client should be able to reliably give useful information.
Question: Other than continuous connection monitoring with getStats() and maybe the experimental navigator.connection property, how can the web-client monitor network connectivity?
Pre-Call Test
We recommend to customers to run a pre-call test and have implemented it on our site as well. However, results of that test often times do not reflect the in-session connectivity. Worse, a pre-call test may detect a low (no video) bandwidth while Skype works just fine.
Question: How can that be?
I'm a member of the TokBox development team. I remember you reported an issue with the Python SDK, thanks for that!
Web-Client: A/V Resources
Most acquisition issues are detected by the JS SDK and if they aren't then we'd really like to hear about it! Please report reproduction steps or affected session IDs to TokBox support (referencing this StackOverflow question): https://support.tokbox.com/hc/en-us/requests/new
Most acquisition errors appear as OT_HARDWARE_UNAVAILABLE or OT_MEDIA_ERR_ABORTED errors. Are you detecting and surfacing these errors to your users? There is also the special OT_CHROME_MICROPHONE_ACQUISITION_ERROR error which is due to a known issue with Chrome that has been mostly fixed since Chrome 63 (see https://bugs.chromium.org/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=4799).
Web-Client: Network
Unfortunately this is one of the more difficult issues to troubleshoot. Yes, Subscriber#getStats() is the best tool we have at our disposal and is a wrapper around the native RTCPeerConnection#getStats() function. Unfortunately we don't have much control over the values returned by the native function and if you think our SDK is returning incorrect values when compared with values from RTCPeerConnection#getStats() then please let us know!
It would be worthwhile confirming whether the issue is reproducible in all browsers or only a particular one. If you have detailed data regarding the inaccuracy of the native RTCPeerConnection#getStats() function then we could work together to report it to the browser vendor(s).
Fortunately we have just released the new Publisher#getStats() function which lets you get the publisher side of the stats. This should help you narrow down the cause of a connectivity issue to either a publisher or subscriber side. Please let us know if this helps with tracking down these issues.
Pre-Call Test
Again, these tests are based on Subscriber#getStats() which in turn are based on RTCPeerConnection#getStats(), the accuracy of which is out of our hands, but we'd love any reproduction steps to either fix a bug in our client SDK or report a bug to the browser vendors.
Just to confirm though, when you say you've implemented a pre-call test in your site, did you use the official JavaScript network test module? https://github.com/opentok/opentok-network-test-js This is actually what's used by the TokBox pre-call test.
#Aiham, thanks for responding, I've been looking at the the new Publisher#getStats() you linked to (thank you!), so we too can give our users some way of visibly seeing the network conditions that might be affected the quality of their call (and who's causing it). However, it seems as though bytes / packets sent goes up sharply as the number of subscribers increases, even though we're in a routed session.
Am I wrong to expect the Publisher#getStats() statistics to stay fairly stable regardless of the number of subscribers then receiving that stream in a routed session? I expected the nature of a routed call to mean it's sent once to the OpenTok Media Servers, and the statistics would end there.
Browser: Chrome
I am trying to debug a webRTC application which works fine on three out of four fronts! I cannot get video from the receiver to the caller. I can get video and audio from the caller to the receiver and audio from the receiver to the caller. The problem is that the receiver does not fire a video (sdpMid="video") ICE candidate. While desperately trying to solve this problem, I tried to use pc.CreateAnswer before setting pc.remoteDescription and it gave the error quoted in the title.
My question is to understand the reason behind this. An answer SDP would just be the SDP based upon the getUserMedia settings/constraints. So, why do we have to wait for setting remoteDescription. I thought that a createAnswer would start firing the gathering of ICE candidates and this can be done earlier without waiting to set remoteDescription. That is not the case. Why?
Offers and answers aren't independent, they're part of an inherently asymmetric exchange.
An answer is a direct response to a specific offer (hence the name "answer"). Therefore the peer cannot answer before it has an offer, which you set with setRemoteDescription.
An offer contains specific limitations, or envelope (like m-lines), that an answer has to abide by/answer to/stay within. Another way to say it is that the answer is an iteration of the offer.
For instance, an offer created with offer options offerToReceiveVideo: false can only be answered with recvonly for video (meaning receive video from offerer to answerer only), never sendrecv.
Scenario:
I'm using WebRTC (Google's libjingle) on iOS and PeerConnection is setup using a TURN server and I'm waiting for all candidates to gather before I send them to the peer (I'm using SIP). The problem is that although all candidates are gathered in around 1-3 seconds (I can see it in the logs) the iceGatheringChanged() callback is not called with state GatheringComplete until after around a whole minute!
Any idea why that happens?
After analyzing the traffic using Google's AppRTCDemo for iOS it seems that for GatheringComplete to fire, the client needs to already have received the candidates from the remote side, and that because it seems to need to setup TURN Allocations and add Permissions on the new allocation so that data can be exchanged with the peer. Is that the case? If so why?
Best regards
Are you exchanging the candidates for both party in real time? You are right, TURN client requires the other party candidates to create permission in TURN server and also to make check lists to start ICE processing.
I am thinking of changing my application from using a single PeerConnection for transferring media both ways to one PeerConnection for upstream and one for downstream for a single call between two peer.
The advantages I foresee:
Less worry about signalling state of PeerConnection when changing offering media from video+audio to audio and vice-versa
Might be easier to plug an Media Servers like kurento into the application ( in case of multi user call, lesser upload bandwidth required by user).
(not sure of this one) single responsibility principle, each PeerConnection has single role.
the major reason I want to do this change is, I am noticing that if peer(peer1) offers only audio but other peer(peer2) answers with both video+audio, peer1 recieves only the audio for some reason, but if peer1 had been an answerer, it is able to recieve both MediaTracks without any problem. Not sure if it is a bug in my app or browser( got same result in firefox and chrome). I was able to make a workaround by maintaining states, changing offerer based on state and stuff, but having problems with both peers changing state (nearly) simultaneously. Thought above proposal would be simpler solution and I can get rid of maintaining states.
Other than the obvious disadvantages of extra overhead of more ICE candidate requests( n STUN n TURN), maintaining extra PeerConnections, any other issue possible following this design?
Nothing prevents you from doing that, but I suspect there's a simpler solution to your problem which you kind of buried:
the major reason I want to do this change is, I am noticing that if peer(peer1) offers only audio but other peer(peer2) answers with both video+audio, peer1 recieves only the audio for some reason,
Don't ask me why, but the default spec behavior when peer1 only offers audio, is to only request audio from the other side. To override this and leave yourself open to receiving video as well if the other side has it, use RTCOfferOptions:
peer1.createOffer({ offerToReceiveVideo: true }).then( ... )
(or if you're using the legacy non-promise API it's the third argument.)
The nice thing with this is that it is intent-based so you don't need to track any state. e.g. always using { offerToReceiveVideo: true, offerToReceiveAudio: true } may be right for you.
A resource issue would be that you are be utilizing more ports as both sides of the connection have to complete the DTLS handshake(which is done peer-to-peer and not through the signalling server).
A design challenge is keeping track of two connections orthogonally. It could be hairy and will more readily show errors in the underlying webrtc implementation if the state is not handled properly(browser state errors, etc.).
I'm working with GameKit.framework and I'm trying to create a reliable communication between two iPhones.
I'm sending packages with the GKMatchSendDataReliable mode.
The documentation says:
GKMatchSendDataReliable
The data is sent continuously until it is successfully received by the intended recipients or the connection times out.
Reliable transmissions are delivered in the order they were sent. Use this when you need to guarantee delivery.
Available in iOS 4.1 and later. Declared in GKMatch.h.
I have experienced some problems on a bad WiFi connection. The GameKit does not declare the connection lost, but some packages never arrive.
Can I count on a 100% reliable communication when using GKMatchSendDataReliable or is Apple just using fancy names for something they didn't implement?
My users also complain that some data may be accidentally lost during the game. I wrote a test app and figured out that GKMatchSendDataReliable is not really reliable. On weak internet connection (e.g. EDGE) some packets are regularly lost without any error from the Game Center API.
So the only option is to add an extra transport layer for truly reliable delivery.
I wrote a simple lib for this purpose: RoUTP. It saves all sent messages until acknowledgement for each received, resends lost and buffers received messages in case of broken sequence.
In my tests combination "RoUTP + GKMatchSendDataUnreliable" works even beter than "RoUTP + GKMatchSendDataReliable" (and of course better than pure GKMatchSendDataReliable which is not really reliable).
It nearly 100% reliable but maybe not what you need sometimes… For example you dropped out of network all the stuff that you send via GKMatchSendDataReliable will be sent in the order you've send them.
This is brilliant for turn-based games for example, but if fast reaction is necessary a dropout of the network would not just forget the missed packages he would get all the now late packages till he gets to realtime again.
The case GKMatchSendDataReliable doesn't send the data is a connection time out.
I think this would be also the case when you close the app