WebRTC Tutorial by Dean Bubley of Disruptive Analysis & Tim Panton of Westhawk Ltd

Tutorial: WebRTC
Tim Panton, Westhawk (ex-Tropo)
Dean Bubley, Disruptive Analysis
Originally Delivered at ICIN, Venice, October 14th 2013
dean.bubley@disruptive-analysis.com
thp@westhawk.co.uk

@disruptivedean
@steely_glint

Agenda for today












15.30 Introduction & background for WebRTC (DB)
15:50 WebRTC Technical Aspects & Standards (TP)
16:30 Q&A
16:45 Comfort Break
17:00 WebRTC Business issues & industry structure (DB)
17:20 WebRTC Integration for Telcos (TP)
18:00 Recommendations & action points (DB)
18:15 Q&A
18:30 Close & drinks

October 2013

Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

OVERVIEW OF WEBRTC:
CONCEPT & KEY BENEFITS
(& SOME PROVOCATIONS)
October 2013


About Disruptive Analysis










London-based analyst house & strategic consulting firm
Cross-silo, contrarian, visionary, independent
Advisor to telcos, vendors, regulators & investors
Covering VoIP since 1997 & 3G/4G mVoIP since 2007
Covering WebRTC since mid-2011
Published report on “Telco-OTT Strategies”, Feb 2012
Report & updates on WebRTC, from Feb 2013
Workshops on Future of Voice & TelcoOTT

Twitter @disruptivedean Blog: disruptivewireless.blogspot.com
October 2013


For WebRTC report & quarterly
update details email
information@disruptive-analysis.com

October 2013


Remember these?

October 2013


Design & software simpler via the Web

October 2013


Benefits of WebRTC












Democratises voice & video in websites & apps
Add context to communications & vice-versa
Cheap / easy / open-source components
Advocacy from Google, major vendors, telcos, IETF,
W3C etc
Enterprises & telcos can extend comms over the Internet
Real momentum & enthusiasm
No predefined signalling
Growing ecosystem even pre-standardisation
Realtime data even more disruptive

October 2013


WebRTC = disruptive service innovation

Million

Device base supporting WebRTC growing Zero4bn in 4 years

Source: Disruptive Analysis WebRTC Strategy Report, Feb 2013 & Q2 Update August 2013
Definitions & methodology in report - See disruptivewireless.blogspot.com for details
October 2013


Voice ≠ Telephony
• Now: 2G & 3G

• Future: Smartphones & LTE

Voice

Voice
Telephony

Telephony

Voicemail
Conferencing
PTT

Video

Gaming, CEBP,
surveillance, social
voice, TV voice etc
Comms moving “in-context”

October 2013


Video, context, sense

Voice/video moving from service to function
Service
e.g. SMS, Telephony

Product
e.g. Viber, Uberconference

Feature
e.g. In-game chat

Function

Fragmenting voice/video comms models

Standalone
Circuit calls
IP

Embedded
app/web
calls

Oct 2013

Non-call
comms


Better than
“being there”
“There”–
same place
and time

Telephony aspires to be
“like being there”

The role of video in communications



Video really needs to have a clear “purpose”
We will not default to “video everywhere”






Different issues of ergonomics, social norms, behaviour
Very little desire for interruptive straight-to-video calls
Numerous niches for B2B, B2C, C2C







Will be even more contextualised than voice & messaging

Skype calls between distant relatives / expats / diaspora
Customer service but need for extensive retraining of staff
Personal consulting eg doctors, therapists, trainers, interviewers

Need for interoperability unclear as often incontext/in=app

October 2013


Comforting myths
QoS is critical

Interoperability is essential

Minutes / messages = value
October 2013


Uncomfortable reality
QoS is sometimes critical
Interoperability is essential
for lowest-common
denominator services only

Intention & outcomes = value
October 2013


Intent & purpose....

Why do people make
phone calls, anyway?

October 2013


WEBRTC STANDARDS
AND UNDERPINNINGS
Tim Panton, Westhawk Ltd - @steely_glint

What is webRTC?






Haven’t used webRTC
Your laptop is on wifi
Have Chrome/firefox
Browse to:
http://phono.com – click ‘call’

What did we just do?








Placed a video call with no plugins
zero config
just by browsing to a site
encrypted
free
over local wifi

WebRTC Definition








Realtime
voice / video /data
browser based
no plugins
secure
interoperable

Standards






IETF
W3C
Loosely based on pre-existing standards
$100s Millions of IPR - donated
Google, Cisco, Mozilla, Skype, Tropo, ATT,
E///, Lucent etc.

Big Picture
HTTP(s) signaling via webserver
Peer to Peer media between Browsers

Protocol standards (IETF)
The IETF has responsibility for the wire
protocols in RTCWeb

Signaling Standards
None!



It is up to the javascript in the
browser to do what ever is needed.

Media Standards (RIA 2.0)
Many!











STUN
ICE
TURN
DTLS
SRTP
RTCP
OPUS
ULAW

Why so many?
The network environment of a web browser is not
the same as a desk phone.




Security – hostile lans (coffee shops/hotels)
Variablity – home networks, wifi/3g
Programability – Javascript is dynamically
loadable

This stack of media standards addresses the
differences.

NAT

NAT

STUN and ICE address NAT
ICE sends multiple STUN packets down all possible interfaces to try and
find a path. First Bi-directional route found is used.

TURN
NAT

NAT

TURN is for when ICE fails to find a viable path
A TURN server in the cloud acts as a packet reflector
Many Telco 3g networks isolate users from each other.

MS
NAT

NAT

Bridging via a media server.
If additional services are required – recording, conferences, PSTN interop
etc. then bridging via a media server may be required.

DTLS
DTLS is the UDP version of TLS (as used in
https etc)
It serves 2 purposes in the WebRTC




Exchange keys used by the SRTP media
encryption
Carry the data channel streams

Demo – sharefest.me
Data channel provides Peer 2 Peer data between
browsers.
It can be used for file transfer, game moves etc.
It may also become important in M2M or IOT as a
secure NAT friendly P2P protocol.
Demo show file transfer between 2 browsers by
sharing a URL, but not through that server.

SRTP + RTCP
Encrypted version of the classic RTP protocol,
with the RTCP reporting mechanism.
Multiple media streams may be multiplexed over
the same pair of ports – still under discussion.

Standard Codecs
Audio

OPUS
Wideband
Flexible, efficient, loss
correcting
Expensive to transcode
 ULAW
Narrowband PSTN codec
High bandwidth
Poor in lossy/variable networks


Codecs - No video standard yet.
Video




VP8
H264

Differences are largely commercial
and legal rather than technical, either
is plenty good enough.

Standard APIs (W3c)
These are the API’s offered to the javascript
programmer – aka ‘JSEP’

Javascript : getUserMedia()
navigator.webkitGetUserMedia({
'audio':true,
'video':true
},
function(stream) {
var url =webkitURL.createObjectURL(stream);
createPeer(stream);

},
function(error) {
});

Javascript : RTCPeerConnection
pc = new RTCPeerConnection(configuration,constraints);
pc.onicecandidate = function(evt) {
sendCandyToAlice(evt.candidate);
};
pc.onaddstream = function (event) {
var remotePlay = document.getElementById(”videoTag");
remotePlay.src = webkitURL.createObjectURL(event.stream);
};
pc.addStream(localStream);
pc.createOffer(
function(offer) {
pc.setLocalDescription(offer);
sendOfferToAlice(pc.localDescription.sdp);
},
null, constraints);

HTML : <Video> tag







Extended to accept a webRTC stream as a
source
Either a local or remote
See previous slides
Additional mute etc.

Javascript:RTCSessionDescription
function onMessageFromAlice(message){
var sd = new RTCSessionDescription(

{'sdp':message,'type':"answer”} );
pc.setRemoteDescription(sd,sessionOk,sessionFail);
}

Dissention with SDP as an API








SDP is emitted by pc.createOffer()
Complex SDP
May be manipulated to select
codecs/candidates…
Source of much complaint
Currently ill defined
May be replaced in 2.0 std

Other co-operating W3C APIs


WebGL
Can be used to apply effects to video



WebAudio
Can be used to apply effects to audio

Both will be able to be applied to local or remote
streams

Javascript libraries






Most web coders will use a library
JS Sip
ATT.js
Phono
OpenRTC

Demo – WebGL effects
Demo of WebGL doing realtime effects on a
webRTC video stream

WEBRTC BUSINESS ISSUES &
INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
October 2013


WebRTC key use cases
Browser-to-browser
(or web-app)
comms

Browser-to-Telco
VoIP / IMS

Browser-to-Telco
CS / PSTN

Browser-to-UC
or IP-PBX

Browser/app
conferencing

Verticals

IMS

Browser-towebserver

Browser-to-contact
centre

Web

Healthcare
Plus: M2M, gaming, TV-based, data-centric & various others
Oct 2013


App/web-embedded RTC not new concept
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Expensive
Inflexible
Poor developer support
Limited use-cases
Reliance on “call” model
Poor audio/video
Hard to integrate

= Patchy adoption & little
developer enthusiasm / buzz

Oct 2013


WebRTC has created the buzz & excitement


Democratised the idea of realtime voice/video/data










Easy elevator pitch

“It’s like Skype – but in the browser, with no plug-ins!”
“Three simple Javascript APIs – millions can use it!”
“It’s being evangelised by Google & all these other
guys!”
Mix of (fast) standardisation & “pragmatic proprietary”
Encourages experimentation with a very low bar
Usable at multiple levels of abstraction / effort /
commitment
Carries a sense of inevitability & scope for innovation

Oct 2013


... although not quite as “easy as it looks” yet

Signalling

Oct 2013


“WebRTC isn’t a standard. It’s a movement”
(Quote from Tsahi Levent-Levi @tsahil)



Irony: problems making WebRTC stronger not weaker
“Hardcore” comms developers going “down to the metal”





Longer-tail developers being addressed by API/cloud
players









Building around core RTCWeb protocols & media engine
Embedding WebRTC elements into desktop applications

“Packaged” WebRTC capabilities like multiparty video
Abstraction to avoid risk from changing standards
APIs for iOS, Android apps

Next tier up of service platforms emerging too
Renewed interest in “realtime everywhere”
No “religion” about WebRTC “purity” – just get on with it!

Oct 2013


WebRTC made easier via 3rd-party APIs

CU-RTC-Web?

Oct 2013


3-way support for WebRTC now expanding
Enterprise
Network
tools

Devices

WebRTC
Consumer
Web

Telco

TV &
gaming
Oct 2013


WebRTC rapidly expanding past “calls”

Oct 2013


View Oct’13: lead WebRTC use-cases

Live &
commercial

Pilots / precommercial

Trials &
demos
October 2013

Early enterprise adoption
• “Call me” buttons
• Contact centre
• First telehealth apps

Initial consumer web apps/devices
• Remote 1-1 education/training/sales
• Free standalone video-calling
• Chromecast
• Developer SDKs & APIs
• Vertical niche solutions (finance, health)
• Corporate conferencing
• Full enterprise UC
• Telco core/IMS extension
• Entertainment & consumer electronics
• M2M, CDN & data-centric apps

What use-cases lead?
Existing
web
services

Adding real-time
comms capabilities
Existing
realtime
comms
services

Extending via the web,
blending web
capabilities

?

Oct 2013


Provisional WebRTC timeline (at Q1’2013)
History Prediction

IETF working
group set up

Ericsson
WebRTC
demo at MWC

Google opensources GIPS IPR

2011

Google, Cisco,
Skype, Mozilla
RTC-Web
workshop
Chrome &
Opera
browsers start
supporting
WebRTC APIs

Broad adoption of
WebRTC in massmarket
1 billion WebRTC
contact centres
capable devices
2 billion WebRTC
User familiarity
capable devices
with in-website
User familiarity
voice/video
with in-app
voice/video

W3C final
draft
submitted

Telefonica
acquires
TokBox

2012

2013

Chrome
supports
WebRTC in
stable channel

2014

2015

3 billion WebRTC
capable devices

2016

First operatorbranded WebRTC
/IMS apps emerge

AT&T
announces
alpha WebRTC
APIs

Firefox supports
WebRTC in stable
channel by default

Native-WebRTC
smartphones gain
traction
1 billion individual
Microsoft IE
active WebRTC
supports WebRTC 1st WebRTC-primary
users
or CU-RTC-Web social/calling app goes
viral

Source: Disruptive Analysis WebRTC Strategy Report, Feb 2013
Assumptions - See disruptive-analysis.com for details

Oct 2013


Various “flavours” of WebRTC gateway
Internet

WebRTC
Gateway

IMS

Internet

WebRTC
Gateway

PSTN

Internet

WebRTC
Gateway

IP-PBX

Internet

WebRTC
Gateway

M2M

-Signalling, eg SIP-over-WebSocket
- Voice/video/data media over SRTP
- STUN/ICE/TURN setup for firewalls
Oct 2013

Varying functions & scale for gateways,
eg WebSockets, ICE, SIP/XMPP etc, API
exposure, transcoding, security etc


WEBRTC INTEGRATION
OPTIONS
Tim Panton, Westhawk Ltd – @steely_glint

Demo – call a mobile


Demo calls my mobile from a browser

Not everyone wants to interop







Games
Dating sites
Whiteboards
OTT
Mayday

For these sites a home grown signaling protocol
may be simplest/best.
(highest value apps will be in this class)

Problem statement
WebRTC







HTTP(S) transport
RIA 2.0 media
Encrypted
Opus
VP8 ?

Carrier IMS







SIP
RTP
Cleartext
Ulaw (729, amr?)
H263/4

Gateway needed ?
Unless and until those incompatibilities go
away.

HTTP to SIP – SIP in the Browser







Use javascript to build SIP messages and
protocol
Wrap in HTTP (or Web-sockets)
Send to webserver
Webserver unwraps and forwards to IMS

SIP in the browser

Browser
JS SIP

SIP in HTTP

WebSocket
Server

UDP
SIP

IMS

Problems








You still have a gateway – albeit a thin one.
You have javascript injecting SIP messages
into IMS
The SDP isn’t compatible
The media isn’t compatible
What is Early media in a browser ?
You have your SIP credentials out on the
internet.

SIP in the browser with SBC
DMZ

Browser
JS SIP

SIP in HTTP

WebSocket
Server

UDP
SIP

SBC

UDP
SIP

IMS

Remaining Problems




The media isn’t compatible
What is Early media in a browser ?
You have SIP credentials out on the internet.

SIP in the browser with SBC, Media
Gateway and Registration proxy
DMZ

Browser
JS SIP

SIP in HTTP

RIA 2.0

WebSocket
Server

UDP
SIP

Proxy
Reg

SBC

Media
GW

UDP
SIP

IMS

RTP ulaw

REST in the browser






Use web ‘RESTful’ commands
Sent from the browser
To a webRTC gateway
Gateway generates the SIP IMS needs
Gateway controls transcode resource

REST in the browser with
Gateway
DMZ

Browser
app

REST/HTTP

WebRTC
gateway

UDP
SIP

IMS

Problems






Need to map from web Identity to SIP
Select a web identity provider
webRTC gateways don’t scale (yet)
No standard for REST messages
Home rolled protocol (may have holes)

XMPP in the browser with SBC
DMZ

Browser
app

XMPP/BOSH/
HTTP

WebRTC
gateway

UDP
SIP

IMS

Problems
Need to map from web Identity to SIP
 Select a web identity provider
 webRTC gateways don’t scale (yet)
 More complex than necessary
 Needless protocol mapping?
However
 BOSH is tested
 XMPP well defined and federates


Did we forget mobile?
WebRTC isn’t mobile first yet.

WebRTC on Mobile







Browser isn’t a natural interface
WebRTC codecs are heavy on battery
No native App friendly API (yet)
SIP (if used) not an efficient mobile protocol
Audio hardware on android variable

Both Chrome and firefox on Android support
webRTC
Expect to see RIA 2.0 with native APIs

Identity.
DTLS can carry a certificate – but which
one should be used?

Multiple identities on the web
When I call from a webpage, which identity do I
want to present?
 E164 to the shop
 Facebook Id to my fb friends
 Anon to the game
 Pseudo id to dating site
Do I ever want to present facebook ID to G+
users?

Demo
Phono using a Jira identity. (perhaps)

RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT
STEPS FOR TELCO WEBRTC
October 2013


Traditional telecom services: ugly outlook

Source: Model for STL Partners, developed
by Disruptive Analysis

Focus on broadband, bundling,
M2M, digital services & lower costs
/ better flexibility
October 2013


For telcos, it’s all looking pretty grim anyway
Downsides
Voice & SMS saturation & cannibalisation
Regulation & competitive impacts
Weak content & VAS propositions
Economic pressures
Ecosystem competition

Upsides
Connecting the last unconnected
Smartphones & data growth
Better segmentation & pricing
Innovative services & enablers
Embracing & exploiting fragmentation
October 2013


Neuroscience explains reluctance to change


Predictable irrationality



Endowment effect
Optimism bias
Confirmation bias
Defence of belief systems





Oct 2013


Network/service coupling: historical accident

• Service = network
• Only 1 service
• Interop essential
October 2013


What is “OTT”?
Any capability offered “over the top” of Public Internet
Can be service, application, feature or function,
decoupled from the underlying access network
Calling OTT a “threat” misses its inevitability
Overlooks 150+ examples of “Telco OTT” services

October 2013


Carrier strategies with/against OTT
Needs developer skills
Likely conflict internally
Few telcos will succeed

Buys time if done well
But perceived value will fall
Accounting questions

TelcoOTT

Bundle/
enhance

Partner

Block /
degrade
/ Charge

Add value to bundles
May be revshare upside
QoS not monetisable

Needs regulatory OK
Starts unwinnable arms race
Admission of being “dumb”

Also: Exit & allow customers to BYOVoice
October 2013


For telcos WebRTC is a magnifier/catalyst

Now

With WebRTC
Bigger opportunities
Worse threats
Faster speed
Oct 2013


What % of future value comes from 3GPP?
VoLTE &
RCS

Corporate
UC

Video
conf

Network
APIs

Core ntwk
& legacy
voice

Corporate
UC

Video
conf

Developer
APIs

Cisco /
MS Lync

Bluejean
s / Vidyo
etc

Twillio /
Voxeo

IMS as a
platform

Consumer

Business

OTTs

Developers

IMS,
eventuall
y

The Theory

The Reality

• Various telco business units now disintermediating their own core network / platform
• Increasingly partnering with 3rd-party players for voice/video apps
• What % of future equipment/server need will reside in IMS/3GPP domain vs. 3rd party
equipment or cloud platforms?
October 2013


Main WebRTC strategies for SPs?
Extend onnet services
& IMS / SS7
Strengthen
enterprise &
verticals

Enhance
developer
platform

October 2013

Turbocharge
Telco-OTT
apps

Sell
packaged
WebRTC
services to
subscriber


Also: invest /
incubate
Improve own CRM
& systems
Maybe M2M,
devices etc

Conclusions







WebRTC is emerging very fast
Standards are still settling
Important to be “a part of the community”
Early experimentation is mandatory
Don’t confine WebRTC to IMS & Labs







Probably no more than 30% total WebRTC effort / resources
should go on IMS integration

Every unit in the telco with a website should be using it
Think about second-order problems now
Speed & design & purpose >> quality & evaluation

October 2013


www.disruptive-analysis.com
disruptivewireless.blogspot.com
@disruptivedean

www.westhawk.co.uk

information@disruptive-analysis.com

thp@westhawk.co.uk

Skype:disruptiveanalysis

October 2013


@steely_glint

WebRTC Tutorial by Dean Bubley of Disruptive Analysis & Tim Panton of Westhawk Ltd

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a WebRTC Tutorial by Dean Bubley of Disruptive Analysis & Tim Panton of Westhawk Ltd

Similar a WebRTC Tutorial by Dean Bubley of Disruptive Analysis & Tim Panton of Westhawk Ltd (20)

Más de Dean Bubley

Más de Dean Bubley (20)

Último

Último (20)

WebRTC Tutorial by Dean Bubley of Disruptive Analysis & Tim Panton of Westhawk Ltd