Skip to content

TCP ICE first iteration#238

Merged
sgfn merged 2 commits intomasterfrom
tcp-ice
Mar 3, 2026
Merged

TCP ICE first iteration#238
sgfn merged 2 commits intomasterfrom
tcp-ice

Conversation

@sgfn
Copy link
Member

@sgfn sgfn commented Nov 20, 2025

@sgfn sgfn changed the title [WIP] TCP ICE TCP ICE first iteration Feb 13, 2026
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 13, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.01%. Comparing base (55582ce) to head (de27e07).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #238      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.07%   88.01%   -0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          59       59              
  Lines        2835     2836       +1     
==========================================
- Hits         2497     2496       -1     
- Misses        338      340       +2     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
lib/ex_webrtc/peer_connection.ex 85.35% <100.00%> (-0.24%) ⬇️
lib/ex_webrtc/peer_connection/configuration.ex 95.05% <ø> (ø)
lib/ex_webrtc/rtp_receiver/nack_generator.ex 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 55582ce...de27e07. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@sgfn sgfn marked this pull request as ready for review February 13, 2026 12:20
@sgfn sgfn requested a review from Karolk99 February 13, 2026 12:20
Copy link
Contributor

@Karolk99 Karolk99 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You can add simple tests that check if a transceiver was created with the correct protocol

@sgfn
Copy link
Member Author

sgfn commented Feb 18, 2026

Even though RFC 4571, sec. 4. defines a token value TCP/RTP/AVP that should seemingly "fit better" in the SDP mlines when using TCP transport, we adhere to the guidelines from RFC 5764, sec. 8. and always use UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF. This is because the media stream still uses DTLS and is essentially unchanged, the only difference being handled by ICE (RFC 4571 framing and TCP transport for the would-be UDP datagram payloads).

The same applies to UDP/DTLS/SCTP used in data channels.

@sgfn sgfn merged commit edd7530 into master Mar 3, 2026
3 checks passed
@sgfn sgfn deleted the tcp-ice branch March 3, 2026 12:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants