RTC应用的比较研究

A. Nisticò, Dena Markudova, Martino Trevisan, M. Meo, G. Carofiglio
{"title":"RTC应用的比较研究","authors":"A. Nisticò, Dena Markudova, Martino Trevisan, M. Meo, G. Carofiglio","doi":"10.1109/ISM.2020.00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Real-Time Communication (RTC) applications have become ubiquitous and are nowadays fundamental for people to communicate with friends and relatives, as well as for enterprises to allow remote working and save travel costs. Countless competing platforms differ in the ease of use, features they implement, supported user equipment and targeted audience (consumer of business). However, there is no standard protocol or interoperability mechanism. This picture complicates the traffic management, making it hard to isolate RTC traffic for prioritization or obstruction. Moreover, undocumented operation could result in the traffic being blocked at firewalls or middleboxes. In this paper, we analyze 13 popular RTC applications, from widespread consumer apps, like Skype and Whatsapp, to business platforms dedicated to enterprises - Microsoft Teams and Webex Teams. We collect packet traces under different conditions and illustrate similarities and differences in their use of the network. We find that most applications employ the well-known RTP protocol, but we observe a few cases of different (and even undocumented) approaches. The majority of applications allow peer-to-peer communication during calls with only two participants. Six of them send redundant data for Forward Error Correction or encode the user video at different bitrates. In addition, we notice that many of them are easy to identify by looking at the destination servers or the domain names resolved via DNS. The packet traces we collected, along with the metadata we extract, are made available to the community.","PeriodicalId":120972,"journal":{"name":"2020 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM)","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study of RTC applications\",\"authors\":\"A. Nisticò, Dena Markudova, Martino Trevisan, M. Meo, G. Carofiglio\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ISM.2020.00007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Real-Time Communication (RTC) applications have become ubiquitous and are nowadays fundamental for people to communicate with friends and relatives, as well as for enterprises to allow remote working and save travel costs. Countless competing platforms differ in the ease of use, features they implement, supported user equipment and targeted audience (consumer of business). However, there is no standard protocol or interoperability mechanism. This picture complicates the traffic management, making it hard to isolate RTC traffic for prioritization or obstruction. Moreover, undocumented operation could result in the traffic being blocked at firewalls or middleboxes. In this paper, we analyze 13 popular RTC applications, from widespread consumer apps, like Skype and Whatsapp, to business platforms dedicated to enterprises - Microsoft Teams and Webex Teams. We collect packet traces under different conditions and illustrate similarities and differences in their use of the network. We find that most applications employ the well-known RTP protocol, but we observe a few cases of different (and even undocumented) approaches. The majority of applications allow peer-to-peer communication during calls with only two participants. Six of them send redundant data for Forward Error Correction or encode the user video at different bitrates. In addition, we notice that many of them are easy to identify by looking at the destination servers or the domain names resolved via DNS. The packet traces we collected, along with the metadata we extract, are made available to the community.\",\"PeriodicalId\":120972,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2020 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM)\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2020 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISM.2020.00007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2020 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISM.2020.00007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

实时通信(RTC)应用程序已经无处不在,是当今人们与朋友和亲戚沟通的基础,也是企业允许远程工作和节省差旅成本的基础。无数的竞争平台在易用性、实现的功能、支持的用户设备和目标受众(企业消费者)方面存在差异。但是,没有标准协议或互操作性机制。这种情况使流量管理变得复杂,使得隔离RTC流量以确定优先级或阻塞变得困难。此外,未记录的操作可能导致流量在防火墙或中间盒处被阻塞。在本文中,我们分析了13个流行的RTC应用程序,从广泛的消费者应用程序,如Skype和Whatsapp,到企业专用的商业平台,如Microsoft Teams和Webex Teams。我们收集了不同条件下的数据包轨迹,并说明了它们在网络使用中的异同。我们发现大多数应用程序都使用众所周知的RTP协议,但是我们也观察到一些不同的(甚至没有记录的)方法。大多数应用程序在只有两个参与者的呼叫期间允许点对点通信。其中六个发送冗余数据用于前向纠错或以不同的比特率对用户视频进行编码。此外,我们注意到其中许多很容易通过查看目标服务器或通过DNS解析的域名来识别。我们收集的数据包轨迹以及提取的元数据都可供社区使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A comparative study of RTC applications
Real-Time Communication (RTC) applications have become ubiquitous and are nowadays fundamental for people to communicate with friends and relatives, as well as for enterprises to allow remote working and save travel costs. Countless competing platforms differ in the ease of use, features they implement, supported user equipment and targeted audience (consumer of business). However, there is no standard protocol or interoperability mechanism. This picture complicates the traffic management, making it hard to isolate RTC traffic for prioritization or obstruction. Moreover, undocumented operation could result in the traffic being blocked at firewalls or middleboxes. In this paper, we analyze 13 popular RTC applications, from widespread consumer apps, like Skype and Whatsapp, to business platforms dedicated to enterprises - Microsoft Teams and Webex Teams. We collect packet traces under different conditions and illustrate similarities and differences in their use of the network. We find that most applications employ the well-known RTP protocol, but we observe a few cases of different (and even undocumented) approaches. The majority of applications allow peer-to-peer communication during calls with only two participants. Six of them send redundant data for Forward Error Correction or encode the user video at different bitrates. In addition, we notice that many of them are easy to identify by looking at the destination servers or the domain names resolved via DNS. The packet traces we collected, along with the metadata we extract, are made available to the community.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Structured Pruning of LSTMs via Eigenanalysis and Geometric Median for Mobile Multimedia and Deep Learning Applications Real-Time Detection of Events in Soccer Videos using 3D Convolutional Neural Networks Audio Captioning Based on Combined Audio and Semantic Embeddings Two types of flows admission control method for maximizing all user satisfaction considering seek-bar operation Better Look Twice - Improving Visual Scene Perception Using a Two-Stage Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1