Re: [AVT] How is SDP a=fmtp used for RFC 2198?

Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com> Fri, 09 April 2004 00:26 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15108 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:26:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBjq1-00031R-J8 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:25:41 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i390Pfc0011610 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:25:41 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBjpu-0002vz-1a; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:25:34 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBiyZ-0005rI-Cq for avt@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:30:29 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08701 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:30:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBiyW-0004si-00 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:30:24 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BBhrP-0004Qb-00 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:19:02 -0400
Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBfqh-00038h-00 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:10:08 -0400
Received: from pr-66-150-46-254.wgate.com ([66.150.46.254] helo=mail.tvol.net) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BBfD1-00032x-KY for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:29:07 -0400
Received: from jesup.eng.tvol.net ([10.32.2.26]) by mail.tvol.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 2AY16JPH; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 15:28:27 -0400
Reply-to: Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com>
To: Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Cc: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, paulej@packetizer.com, avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVT] How is SDP a=fmtp used for RFC 2198?
References: <BHEHLFPKIPMLPFNFAHJKAEIJECAA.gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
From: Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:31:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: <BHEHLFPKIPMLPFNFAHJKAEIJECAA.gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Message-ID: <ybun05mz2on.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

"Gunnar Hellstrom" <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> writes:
>3. Each generation of redundant info gives quite good reliability increase.
>
>Look at this calculation:
>
>For RFC2793bis text transport in text form, this is the theory:
>
>Assume that the risk of loosing a packet is p
>The risk of loosing also next text packet is also p
>
>The bad case is only when both are lost. The likelihood for that is p*p .
>
>You can check with 50% loss and sending two packets. There are totally four
>outcomes.
>
>lost -not lost
>lost - lost
>not lost - lost
>not lost - not lost
>
>Only one out of four is unsuccessful. that is 25%.
>
>0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 the probability calculation is valid.
>
>If you add one more redundancy level, the likelihood of all three lost is
>p*p*p
>
>With real figures, 20% packet loss and three transmissions give 0.2 * 0.2 *
>0.2 = 0.008 =0.8%total loss.

        This assumes totally independant loss.  The reality is that loss is
pretty strongly _not_ independant; i.e. the conditional probability of
losing packet N+1 after losing packet N is high, and typically way higher
than the base loss probability p (probability of losing packet N if packet
N-1 was received).  I.e. bursts are not an unusual type of loss.

        From numbers I've seen, the conditional probability for a second
packet to be lost (loss burst size >= 2) on the internet is around 15% or
more (with a p~= 1%).

        Of course these values are way lower than the 50% or 20% mentioned
above, but they're also heavily dependant on the physical links traversed.
(a 3GPP link may be much worse).

-- 
Randell Jesup, Worldgate Communications, ex-Scala, ex-Amiga OS team
rjesup@wgate.com
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons
provided for defence against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad."
		- James Madison, 4th US president (1751-1836)


_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt