RIST continues to gain traction as a way to deliver video reliably over the internet. Reliable Internet Stream Transport continues to find uses both as part of the on-air signal chain and to enable broadcast workflows by ensuring that any packet loss is mitigated before a decoder gets around to decoding the stream.
In this video, AWS Elemental’s David Griggs explains why AWS use RIST and how RIST works. Introduced by LearnIPvideo.com’s Will Simpson who is also the co-chair of the RIST Activity Group at the VSF. Wes starts off by explaining the difference between consumer and business use-cases for video streaming against broadcast workflows. Two of the pertinent differences being one-directional video and needing a fixed delay. David explains that one motivator of broadcasters looking to the internet is the need to replace C-Band satellite links.
RIST’s original goals were to deliver video reliably over the internet but to ensure interoperability between vendors which has been missing to date in the purest sense of the word. Along with this, RIST also aimed to have a low, deterministic latency which is vital to make most broadcast workflows practical. RIST was also designed to be agnostic to the carrier type being internet, satellite or cellular.
Wes outlines how important it is to compensate for packet loss showing that even for what might seem low packet loss situations, you’ll still observe a glitch on the audio or video every twenty minutes. But RIST is more than just a way of ensuring your video/audio arrives without gaps, it. can also support other control signals such as PTZ for cameras, intercom feeds, ad insertion such as SCTE 35, subtitling and timecode. This is one strength which makes RIST ideal for broadcast over using, say RTMP for delivering a live stream.
Wes covers the main and simple profile which are also explained in more detail in this video from SMPTE and this article. One way in which RIST is different from other technologies is GRE tunnelling which allows the carriage of any data type alongside RIST and also allows bundling of RIST streams down a single connecting. This provides a great amount of flexibility to support new workflows as they arise.
David closes the video by explaining why RIST is important to AWS. It allows for a single protocol to support media transfers to, from and within the AWS network. Also important, David explains, is RIST’s standards-based approach. RIST is created out of many standards and RFC with very little bespoke technology. Moreover, the RIST specification is being formally created by the VSF and many VSF specifications have gone on to be standardised by bodies such as SMPTE, ST 2110 being a good example. AWS offer RIST simple profile within MediaConnect with plans to implement the main profile in the near future.
RIST is a protocol which allows for reliable streaming over lossy networks like the internet. Whilst many people know that much, they may not know more and may have questions. Today’s video aims to answer the most common questions. For a technical presentation of RIST, look no further than this talk and this article
Kieran Kunhya deals out the questions to the panel from the RIST Forum, RIST members and AWS. Asking:
Does RIST need 3rd party equipment?
Is there an open-source implementation of RIST?
Whether there are any RIST learning courses?
as well as why companies should use RIST over SRT.
RIST, we hear is based on RTP which is a very widely deployed technology for real-time media transport and is widely used for SMPTE 2022-2 and 6 streams, SMPTE 2110, AES67 and other audio protocols. So not only is it proven, but it’s also based on RFCs along with much of RIST. SRT, the panel says, is based on the UDT file transfer protocol which is not an RFC and wasn’t designed for live media transport although SRT does perform very well for live media.
“Why are there so many competitors in RIST?” is another common question which is answered by talking about the need for interoperability. Fostering widespread interoperability will grow the market for these products much more than it would with many smaller protocols. “What new traction is RIST getting?” is answered by David Griggs from AWS who says they are committed to the protocol and find that customers like the openness of the protocol and are thus willing to invest their time in creating workflows based on it. Adi Rozenberg lists many examples of customers who are using the technology today. You can hear David Griggs explain RIST from his perspective in this talk.
Other questions handled are the licence that RIST is available under and the open-source implementations, the latency involved in using RIST and whether it can carry NDI. Sergio explains that NDI is a TCP-based protocol so you can transmit it by extracting UDP out of it, using multicast or using a VizRT-tool for extracting the media without recompressing. Finally, the panel looks at how to join the RIST Activity Group in the VSF and the RIST Forum. They talk about the origin of RIST being in an open request to the industry from ESPN and what is coming in the upcoming Advanced Profile.
Is SMPTE ST 2110 suitable for inter-site connectivity over the WAN? ST 2110 is moving past the early adopter phase with more and more installations and OB vans bringing 2110 into daily use but today, each site works independently. What if we could maintain a 2110 environment between sites. There are a number of challenges still to be overcome and moving a large number of essence flows long distances and between PTP time domains is one of them.
Nevion’s Andy Rayner is chair of the VSF Activity Group looking into transporting SMPTE ST 2110 over WAN and is here to give an update on the work in progress which started 18 months ago. The presentation looks at how to move media between locations which has been the primary focus to date then introduces how controlling over which media are shared will be handled which is new to the discussions. Andy starts by outlining the protection offered in the scheme which supports both 2022-7 and FEC. Andy explains that though FEC is valuable for single links where 2022-7 isn’t viable, only some of the possible ST 2022-5 FEC configurations are supported, in part, to keep latency low.
The headline to carrying 2110 over the WAN is that it will be done over a trunk. GRE is a widely used Cisco trunking technology. Trunking, also known as tunnelling, is a technique of carrying ‘private’ traffic over a network such that a device sending into the trunk doesn’t see any of the infrastructures between the entrance and the exit. It allows, for instance, IPv6 traffic to be carried over IPv4 equipment where the v4 equipment has no idea about the v6 data since it’s been wrapped in a v4 envelope. Similarly, the ipv6 equipment has no idea that the ipv6 data is being wrapped and carried by routers which don’t understand ipv6 since the wrapping and unwrapping of the data is done transparently at the handoff.
In the context of SMPTE ST 2110, a trunk allows one port to be used to create a single connection to the destination, yet carry many individual media streams within. This has the big benefit of simplifying the inter-site connectivity at the IT level, but importantly also means that the single connection is quite high bandwidth. When FEC is applied to a connection, the latency introduced increases as the bit rate reduces. Since ST 2110 carries audio and metadata separately, an FEC-protected stream would have variable latency depending on the type of the of traffic. Bundling them in to one large data stream allows FEC to be applied once and all traffic then suffers the same latency increase. The third reason is to ensure all essences take the same network path. If each connection was separate, it would be possible for some to be routed on a physically different route and therefore be subject to a different latency.
Entering the last part of the talk, Andy switches gears to talk about how site A can control streams in site B. The answer is that it doesn’t ‘control’, rather there is the concept of requesting streams. Site A will declare what is available and site B can state what it would like to connect to and when. In response, site A can accept and promise to have those sources available to the WAN interface at the right time. When the time is right, they are released over the WAN. This protects the WAN connectivity from being filled with media which isn’t actually being used. These exchanges are mediated and carried out with NMOS IS-04 an IS-05.
It’s hard to talk about SMPTE 2110 system design without hearing the term ‘spine and leaf’. It’s a fundamental decision that needs to be made early on in the project; how many switches will you use and how will they be interconnected? Deciding is not without accepting compromises, so what needs to be considered?
Chris Lapp from Diversified shares his experience in designing such systems. Monolithic design has a single switch at the centre of the network with everything connected directly to it. For redundancy, this is normally complemented by a separate, identical switch providing a second network. For networks which are likely to need to scale, monolithic designs can add a hurdle to expansion once they get full. Also, if there are many ‘low bandwidth’ devices, it may not be cost-effective to attach them. For instance, if your central switch has many 40Gbps ports, it’s a waste to use many to connect to 1Gbps devices such as audio endpoints.
The answer to these problems is spine and leaf. Chris explains that this is more resilient to failure and allows easy scaling whilst retaining a non-blocking network. These improvements come at a price, naturally. Firstly, it does cost more and secondly, there is. added complexity. In a large facility with endpoints spread out, spine and leaf may be the only sensible option. However, Chris explores a cheaper version of spine and leaf often called ‘hub and spoke’ or ‘hybrid’.
If you are interested in this topic, listen to last week’s video from Arista’s Gerard Philips which talked in more detail about network design covering the pros and cons of spine and leaf, control using IGMP and SDN, PTP design amongst other topics. Read more here.
Views and opinions expressed on this website are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of SMPTE or SMPTE Members.
This website is presented for informational purposes only. Any reference to specific companies, products or services does not represent promotion, recommendation, or endorsement by SMPTE