I would like to know if it is possible for upnp/dlna protocol to stream audio from a single media server to multiple media renderers at the same time. Does the protocol allow this? Thank you.
Basically, it depends on what you mean with "at the same time". It is possible to access the same media by two different DMPs. However, each of them is creating a new stream, means twice the traffic. UPnP and thus DLNA as well is using HTTP as primary streaming protocol. RTP unicast and multicast streams are also considered but mostly not implemented by the manufacturers because it is not mandatory. So, multicast streams aren't well supported.
Additionally, some servers might implement some limitations when accessing a file or media, f.e. when you have a TV tuner or something else which provides exclusive access to a specific media (tv channel). Then, you can access this media only once at a time.
Related
As a follow-up to my previous post (ApiRTC - Behaviour with meshModeEnabled and meshOnlyEnabled)
Hello,
You say that SFU is necessary for any activity that requires centralizing all the streams (recording, bandwidth optimization,...). However, in MESH mode, the files/media exchanged still manage to be recorded on the Apizee media server even though I don't go through the SFU. How is this possible ?
Can this behaviour be disabled so that the exchanged documents never leave the MESH stream ?
I have not found anything about this in the documentation.
By the way, the documentation often mentions the term "MCU", does this mean that ApiRTC also uses an MCU server in addition to the SFU ?
Thanks in advance.
apirtc
Can this behaviour be disabled so that the exchanged documents never
leave the MESH stream ?
Concerning a recording of all the streams in the conversation (via the startRecording method of the Conversation object see https://apirtc.github.io/references/apirtc-js/Conversation.html#startRecording__anchor):
--> The composition of multiple streams into one video file is done server-side by the SFU (v4.4.8).
Concerning the files (through conversation.pushData method):
--> We manage the file transfer through uploading the file on a storage and share the URI to all parties of a conversation. P2P transfer is not available (v4.4.8)
To exchange data in a P2P mode, you can use the Conversation.sendData method to send raw data across all participants.
Regarding your question about the MCU, no, ApiRTC doesnt use any MCU server to date (v. 4.4.8). The document refers to MCU for very specific on-premise deployment, not supported for ApiRTC users.
Cheers,
Romain
Does Google WebRTC Native implementation has support for SFU?
Does Google WebRTC Native implementation support for integrating custom/hardware encoder/decoder?
Not without alteration.
Internally WebRTC's internal audio/video pipelines are directly tied to encoder/decoders.
PeerConnectionFactory allows you to provide a video decoder/encoder factory, so you can short circuit the logic here, and grab the encoded frames, mock up a stream, and feed them directly into it as a relay, creating a new PeerConnection and setting those streams onto it.
The audio end is more difficult. There isn't a codec factory, so you will have to short circuit the logic there probably by alteration of libwebrtc.
The final question is RTCP termination, and how to override the mechanisms for quality/bandwidth control to not create a "One goes out, they all go out." situation.
Since libwebrtc will be the SFU, it will receive RTCP feedback from its remote peer for the content it is proxying, and vice versa.
For a 1-1 situation, it needs to be able to forward the RTCP feedback to the remote peer.
For multipoint, it needs to perform some logic to determine if one of the peers is problematic, and stop sending it video, switch off its video feed, or attempt to switch to a lower bitrate video stream. Basically it needs to act as a conduit that attempts to predict why/how packet loss is occurring, and keep as many audio/video feeds operating normally at at the highest possible quality for each peer.
How exactly to hijack the RTCP feedback mechanisms in libwebrtc, I think that again will likely require some customization/hooks into libwebrtc
I think it will be easier to try with GStreamer implementation of WebRTC. Although it is still in "Bad Plugins" it is way easier to get or provide encoded audio and video. Actually it is implemented in that in mind - to make implementation of MFU and SFU easier.
I'm trying to build a system for real-time analysis on server for video streamed from the client using WebRTC.
Here is what I currently have in mind. I would capture the webcam video stream from the client and send it (compressed using H.264?) to my server.
On my server, I would receive the stream and every raw frame to my C++ library for analysis.
The output of the analysis (box coordinates to draw) would then be sent back to the client via WebRTC or a separate WebSocket connection.
I've been looking online and found open-source media server like Kurento and Mediasoup but, since I only need to read the stream (no dispatch to other clients), do I really need to use an existing server? Or could I build it myself and if so, where to start?
I'm fairly new to the WebRTC and video streaming world in general so I was wondering, does this whole thing sound right to you?
That depends on how real-time your requirements are. If you want 30-60fps and near-realtime, getting the images to the server via RTP is the best solution. And then you'll need things like a jitter buffer, depacketization etc, video decoders, etc.
If you require only one image per second, grabbing it from the canvas and sending it via Websockets or HTTP POST is easier. https://webrtchacks.com/webrtc-cv-tensorflow/ shows how to do that in Python.
I learned on OSDev wiki that Endpoint 0 is the default control pipe, allowing for bi-directional control transfers. This is used for device configuration, e.g. to retrieve device descriptors. The USB 2.0 spec explains this more thorougly in section 5.5 Control Transfers.
There are also a limited amount of endpoints available (2 for low-speed, 15 for full- and high-speed devices). Somewhere in the USB 2.0 spec, I have read that there must be at least one control pipe. This implies that there may be multiple control endpoints, but what is the use of it? Do you know any particular USB device or class that has an EP configured as control pipe?
Later, I found this in the spec, section 10.1.2 Control Mechanisms:
A particular USB device may allow the use of additional message pipes
to transfer device-specific control information. These pipes use the
same communications protocol as the default pipe, but the information
transferred is specific to the USB device and is not standardized by
the USB Specification.
If I understand it correctly, this means that non-EP0 cannot be used to configure the device (say, a standard request such as GET_DESCRIPTOR). But the setup/data/status stages seem still to be available ("[..] use the same communications protocol [..]"). Is this correct? Or is the use of standard/class requests forbidden for non-EP0?
Background: while working on an emulated USB device in QEMU, the need for a USB monitor for debugging purposes appeared. During inspection of the QEMU core USB code, I noticed that it only processed control commands for EP0. Other endpoints would be treated as data. There are some virtual devices (host-libusb) that always reject control transfers for those other endpoints. Hence the question whether this is the correct behavior or not (and if valid, whether there exist devices that really implement this).
As far as I can tell, there is no use for a non-EP0 control endpoint. I have developed several products that use custom control transfers on endpoint 0 as the main way to send device-specific requests and I have not encountered any fundamental problems with doing that.
If you did make a non-EP0 control endpoint I think your understanding is correct; you wouldn't be able to use it for standard requests but you would be able to use it for custom requests and the transaction sequences would be the same as on EP0.
I've read a lot about WebRTC, but there's one question that still remains. I hope you can help me with that:
Does WebRTC allow me to create a one-to-many connection? I don't mean "being able to have multiple connections to different computers", I really talk about having one connection that multicasts its data to multiple endpoints without the need to "upload" the data once for each endpoint. Will it be possible to send one single package to the web, that, when it reaches the web, magically splits itself into multiple packages with different targets?
I hope you get what I'm looking for :)
Until now, I've only seen one-to-one connections, or solutions that have one connection to a central server that does the multicast for them (which usually results in twice the ping).
But to me, one-to-one connections don't seem to be really useful (due to low upload-bandwith of clients), and solutions with a central server are also possible without WebRTC (using WebSockets), so the only real use case for WebRTC would be one-to-many connections.
So.. is this something that will be possible in the future? Or is it already possible today?
Three things:
IP multicast in the Internet is not possible at the moment (multicast addresses are not routed by ISPs)
WebRTC fits many use cases beyond one-to-many communication, just have a look at this document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-06
WebRTC connections between browsers are always encrypted (using SRTP for A/V data and DTLS for generic data) and the encryption parameters (session keys etc.) are negotiated for every connection separately. How would you do that in a multicast environment (think of it as a distribution tree)?
So no, WebRTC cannot be used with IP multicast.
I would answer "It doesn't for now", because as a programmer, I can tell you, that there are number of ways browser devs to make it work if we (users) insist on it's importance. But how ? Since there's encryption, they could allow sharing of the session's encryption keys to the group of 'registered' (multicast) users. But how ? Well, Web was created for sharing. The most obvious way is through web server mediation and JS WebRTC API function (to load the user keys). Since multicast is most often used for efficient video distribution, you have a RTP/SRTP video server. The web server can coexist at the same machine. If they decide to extend it to web browsers - then just the "server" role can be done by the Web browser who created the multicast stream (the sender). The clients need to know who is it.
Again: In December 2013, this is still not possible. And multicasts are allowed on the Internet only in:
some experimental WAN nets
some internet+video ISP nets
LANs (when enabled at switch level, cheap switches transmit it to all ports). But you can be an ISP, researcher or LAN user, so it's necessary.