• Like

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

  • 6,551 views
Uploaded on

Tutorial on WebRTC technologies, standards, use-cases and business models. First given at the ICIN conference in Venice, October 2013. …

Tutorial on WebRTC technologies, standards, use-cases and business models. First given at the ICIN conference in Venice, October 2013.

By Dean Bubley, analyst at Disruptive Analysis, and Tim Panton, WebRTC developer at Westhawk Ltd

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
6,551
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10

Actions

Shares
Downloads
206
Comments
0
Likes
14

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 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
  • 2. 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
  • 3. OVERVIEW OF WEBRTC: CONCEPT & KEY BENEFITS (& SOME PROVOCATIONS) October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 4. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 5. For WebRTC report & quarterly update details email information@disruptive-analysis.com October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 6. Remember these? October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 7. Design & software simpler via the Web October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 8. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 9. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 10. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013 Video, context, sense
  • 11. Voice/video moving from service to function Service e.g. SMS, Telephony Product e.g. Viber, Uberconference Feature e.g. In-game chat Function
  • 12. Fragmenting voice/video comms models Standalone Circuit calls IP Embedded app/web calls Oct 2013 Non-call comms Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 13. “Hegemony of the caller”
  • 14. Better than “being there” “There”– same place and time Telephony aspires to be “like being there”
  • 15. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 16. Comforting myths QoS is critical Interoperability is essential Minutes / messages = value October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 17. Uncomfortable reality QoS is sometimes critical Interoperability is essential for lowest-common denominator services only Intention & outcomes = value October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 18. Intent & purpose.... Why do people make phone calls, anyway? October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 19. WEBRTC STANDARDS AND UNDERPINNINGS Tim Panton, Westhawk Ltd - @steely_glint
  • 20. What is webRTC?      Haven’t used webRTC Your laptop is on wifi Have Chrome/firefox Browse to: http://phono.com – click ‘call’
  • 21. 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
  • 22. WebRTC Definition       Realtime voice / video /data browser based no plugins secure interoperable
  • 23. Standards      IETF W3C Loosely based on pre-existing standards $100s Millions of IPR - donated Google, Cisco, Mozilla, Skype, Tropo, ATT, E///, Lucent etc.
  • 24. Big Picture HTTP(s) signaling via webserver Peer to Peer media between Browsers
  • 25. Protocol standards (IETF) The IETF has responsibility for the wire protocols in RTCWeb
  • 26. Signaling Standards None!  It is up to the javascript in the browser to do what ever is needed.
  • 27. Media Standards (RIA 2.0) Many!         STUN ICE TURN DTLS SRTP RTCP OPUS ULAW
  • 28. 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.
  • 29. 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.
  • 30. 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.
  • 31. 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.
  • 32. 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
  • 33. 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.
  • 34. 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.
  • 35. Standard Codecs Audio OPUS Wideband Flexible, efficient, loss correcting Expensive to transcode  ULAW Narrowband PSTN codec High bandwidth Poor in lossy/variable networks 
  • 36. Codecs - No video standard yet. Video   VP8 H264 Differences are largely commercial and legal rather than technical, either is plenty good enough.
  • 37. Standard APIs (W3c) These are the API’s offered to the javascript programmer – aka ‘JSEP’
  • 38. Javascript : getUserMedia() navigator.webkitGetUserMedia({ 'audio':true, 'video':true }, function(stream) { var url =webkitURL.createObjectURL(stream); createPeer(stream); }, function(error) { });
  • 39. 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);
  • 40. HTML : <Video> tag     Extended to accept a webRTC stream as a source Either a local or remote See previous slides Additional mute etc.
  • 41. Javascript:RTCSessionDescription function onMessageFromAlice(message){ var sd = new RTCSessionDescription( {'sdp':message,'type':"answer”} ); pc.setRemoteDescription(sd,sessionOk,sessionFail); }
  • 42. 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
  • 43. 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
  • 44. Javascript libraries      Most web coders will use a library JS Sip ATT.js Phono OpenRTC
  • 45. Demo – WebGL effects Demo of WebGL doing realtime effects on a webRTC video stream
  • 46. WEBRTC BUSINESS ISSUES & INDUSTRY STRUCTURE October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 47. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 48. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 49. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 50. ... although not quite as “easy as it looks” yet Signalling Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 51. “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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 52. WebRTC made easier via 3rd-party APIs CU-RTC-Web? Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 53. 3-way support for WebRTC now expanding Enterprise Network tools Devices WebRTC Consumer Web Telco TV & gaming Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 54. WebRTC rapidly expanding past “calls” Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 55. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 56. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 57. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 58. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 59. WebRTC gateways galore
  • 60. WEBRTC INTEGRATION OPTIONS Tim Panton, Westhawk Ltd – @steely_glint
  • 61. Demo – call a mobile  Demo calls my mobile from a browser
  • 62. 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)
  • 63. Problem statement WebRTC      HTTP(S) transport RIA 2.0 media Encrypted Opus VP8 ? Carrier IMS      SIP RTP Cleartext Ulaw (729, amr?) H263/4
  • 64. Gateway needed ? Unless and until those incompatibilities go away.
  • 65. 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
  • 66. SIP in the browser Browser JS SIP SIP in HTTP WebSocket Server UDP SIP IMS
  • 67. 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.
  • 68. SIP in the browser with SBC DMZ Browser JS SIP SIP in HTTP WebSocket Server UDP SIP SBC UDP SIP IMS
  • 69. Remaining Problems    The media isn’t compatible What is Early media in a browser ? You have SIP credentials out on the internet.
  • 70. 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
  • 71. 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
  • 72. REST in the browser with Gateway DMZ Browser app REST/HTTP WebRTC gateway UDP SIP IMS
  • 73. 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)
  • 74. XMPP in the browser with SBC DMZ Browser app XMPP/BOSH/ HTTP WebRTC gateway UDP SIP IMS
  • 75. 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 
  • 76. Did we forget mobile? WebRTC isn’t mobile first yet.
  • 77. 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
  • 78. Identity. DTLS can carry a certificate – but which one should be used?
  • 79. 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?
  • 80. Demo Phono using a Jira identity. (perhaps)
  • 81. RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT STEPS FOR TELCO WEBRTC October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 82. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 83. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 84. Neuroscience explains reluctance to change  Predictable irrationality  Endowment effect Optimism bias Confirmation bias Defence of belief systems    Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 85. Network/service coupling: historical accident • Service = network • Only 1 service • Interop essential October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 86. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 87. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 88. For telcos WebRTC is a magnifier/catalyst Now With WebRTC Bigger opportunities Worse threats Faster speed Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 89. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 90. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013 Also: invest / incubate Improve own CRM & systems Maybe M2M, devices etc
  • 91. 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 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 92. For WebRTC report & quarterly update details email information@disruptive-analysis.com October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  • 93. www.disruptive-analysis.com disruptivewireless.blogspot.com @disruptivedean www.westhawk.co.uk information@disruptive-analysis.com thp@westhawk.co.uk Skype:disruptiveanalysis October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013 @steely_glint