Re: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text transmission - optimizing interoperability
Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Thu, 15 April 2004 12:51 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 IAA20524 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:51:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BE6I6-0004hx-Qs for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:48:26 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3FCmQ97018092 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:48:26 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BE5zJ-0005Ny-K0; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:29:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BE4za-0004vJ-O1 for avt@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:25:14 -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 HAA17539 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:25:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BE4za-0006zH-00 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:25:14 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BE4yS-0006vy-00 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:24:05 -0400
Received: from dundee.dcs.gla.ac.uk ([130.209.242.163]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BE4y5-0006se-00 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:23:41 -0400
Received: from alor ([130.209.247.84]:59360) by dundee.dcs.gla.ac.uk with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.04) id 1BE4xY-0003qD-00; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:23:08 +0100
In-Reply-To: <200404151053.i3FArjWB079943@smtp.eweka.nl>
References: <200404151053.i3FArjWB079943@smtp.eweka.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <44C7EB7C-8ECF-11D8-9065-000A957FC5F2@csperkins.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "\"'Gunnar Hellström'\"" <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>, toip@snowshore.com, avt@ietf.org
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Subject: Re: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text transmission - optimizing interoperability
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:23:07 +0100
To: Arnoud van Wijk <a.vwijk@viataal.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Arnoud, On 15 Apr 2004, at 11:30, Arnoud van Wijk wrote: > Hmm. > When looking at an Interactive text stream, even with full redundancy, > the > used bandwidth is a fraction of the bandwidth used by video and audio. > > So knowing this, it is then desirable to cope with the packetloss by > using > the full redundancy. The effect of reducing the sending rate is nihil > when > combined with audio and/or video. > > Also, the minimal sending speed is equal to the typing speed, it is > real-time text after all on a character by character basis. The drafts states that text may be generated by automated systems at high rate in some scenarios. > With full redundancy on, you ensure that interactive text arrived > complete, > while the audio and video may stutter. I would not mind to switch off > the > audio then and continue with the video and interactive text. Consider the cases where there is no parallel audio/visual session; where the link capacity is low and is shared between real-time text and TCP traffic; or where there are large numbers of real-time text sessions. RFC 3551 says: If best-effort service is being used, RTP receivers SHOULD monitor packet loss to ensure that the packet loss rate is within acceptable parameters. Packet loss is considered acceptable if a TCP flow across the same network path and experiencing the same network conditions would achieve an average throughput, measured on a reasonable timescale, that is not less than the RTP flow is achieving. This condition can be satisfied by implementing congestion control mechanisms to adapt the transmission rate (or the number of layers subscribed for a layered multicast session), or by arranging for a receiver to leave the session if the loss rate is unacceptably high. RFC 2198 says: Whilst the addition of low-bandwidth redundancy to an audio stream is an effective means by which that stream may be protected against packet loss, application designers should be aware that the addition of large amounts of redundancy will increase network congestion, and hence packet loss, leading to a worsening of the problem which the use of redundancy was intended to solve. At its worst, this can lead to excessive network congestion and may constitute a denial of service attack. The text conversation draft does not implement congestion control, nor does it mandate that receivers leave the session when the loss rate becomes unacceptably high. Instead, it mandates the addition of large amounts of redundancy to hide the packet loss, and recommends that the session continue. Behaviour that directly contradicts the other RFCs may be appropriate, but this draft has to justify why it is acceptable, and why the recommendations in the other RFCs cannot be followed. Colin _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text transm… Gunnar Hellström
- Re: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text tr… Colin Perkins
- RE: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text tr… Arnoud van Wijk
- [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text transm… Gunnar Hellstrom
- RE: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text tr… Arnoud van Wijk
- RE: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text tr… Gunnar Hellstrom
- RE: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text tr… Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text tr… Colin Perkins
- RE: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text tr… Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text tr… Magnus Westerlund
- RE: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text tr… Arnoud van Wijk
- RE: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text tr… Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text tr… Colin Perkins
- Re: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text tr… Colin Perkins
- RE: [avt] Use of redundancy in rfc2793bis text tr… Gregg Vanderheiden