WebRTC seems broken in the latest stable ( 66.0.3359.139 )

121 views
Skip to first unread message

Carlos Rafael Giani

unread,
May 2, 2018, 5:09:57 AM5/2/18
to Chromium-dev
I was trying out the new GStreamer WebRTC support with Chrome using the
example attached here: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795404

This used to work nicely. Then Chrome got updated, and it is broken now.
It seems to be related to the local SDP generation, which for unknown
reasons does not add media information (fmtp, codecs etc.)


The offered SDP was:

v=0
o=- 6737774140683290487 0 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
s=-
t=0 0
a=ice-options:trickle
m=video 9 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=setup:actpass
a=ice-ufrag:OV0FuLpDqfaRlh+R5b8MdSxkWY71MvP/
a=ice-pwd:QXu78KE3un/AKg/qHYK5QuOYjELjrq+x
a=sendrecv
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-rsize
a=rtpmap:96 H264/90000
a=rtcp-fb:96 nack
a=rtcp-fb:96 nack pli
a=mid:video0
a=fingerprint:sha-256
C5:7E:81:04:B9:94:AA:18:19:B0:AD:E3:60:DE:0C:96:EE:3F:87:7D:CD:DA:F6:15:4E:DA:6A:EB:4E:EC:22:2C
a=fmtp:96 profile-level-id=42c029

The answer is:

v=0
o=- 994571196877641501 2 IN IP4 127.0.0.1
s=-
t=0 0
a=msid-semantic: WMS
m=video 9 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 0
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=rtcp:9 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=ice-ufrag:EoFM
a=ice-pwd:5Tras0Gz0etpkQ/mmxzqnwpc
a=ice-options:trickle
a=fingerprint:sha-256
43:51:00:13:B1:27:8B:76:30:A4:78:04:0C:4E:51:23:69:91:B2:D2:E7:D6:64:C0:AA:20:36:93:47:13:AB:7F
a=setup:active
a=mid:video0
a=recvonly
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-rsize

See? No rtpmap, no rtcp-fb etc.

Is this a known bug in the newest stable?

Taylor Brandstetter

unread,
May 2, 2018, 1:45:11 PM5/2/18
to dv7...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev, Harald Alvestrand, Magnus Jedvert
We only support a "packetization mode" of 1, and the packetization-mode parameter defaults to 0, so the H264 format isn't accepted. It will work if you add "packetization-mode=1" to the fmtp line.

The behavior changed in M66 since we started taking packetization mode into account when negotiating codecs.

hta/magjed: Based on this bug, it sounds like the work is actually done to support packetization mode 0, but it's not being negotiated in SDP yet? Any reason why?



--
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromi...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:    http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-dev
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-dev+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-dev/0b62bdab-0a6d-ae32-c758-aa24cf2c0443%40gmail.com.


Carlos Rafael Giani

unread,
May 2, 2018, 6:38:58 PM5/2/18
to Taylor Brandstetter, Chromium-dev, Harald Alvestrand, Magnus Jedvert

Indeed, with packetization-mode=1 it works! What is odd though that I have version 66.0.3359.126 on the Android phone, it used to work there too, but even with packetization-mode=1, it does not work anymore. I'll try to get some logs from there.

Harald Alvestrand

unread,
May 3, 2018, 4:22:15 AM5/3/18
to Taylor Brandstetter, dv7...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev, Magnus Jedvert
When I left this in March, I had finished the setting of packetization mode 0 for the OpenH264 codec, but I hadn't done the wiring to connect this to the SDP negotiation.

I suppose it fell between some cracks.

Carlos Rafael Giani

unread,
Jul 9, 2018, 9:15:10 AM7/9/18
to Taylor Brandstetter, Chromium-dev, Harald Alvestrand, Magnus Jedvert

Since I wrote this email, considerable amount of work has been done to enhance the GStreamer WebRTC support. It now works fine with Chrome and Firefox on desktop. However, Chrome on my Samsung S8 refuses to work with h.264 and a WebRTC stream coming from GStreamer.

Relevant GStreamer bug reports:

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795404
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795044

The version of Chrome on my S8 is 67.0.3396.87.

Are there known issues with WebRTC and Chrome 67 on Android 8?


On 2018-05-02 19:43, Taylor Brandstetter wrote:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages