[CDNi] Comments on draft draft-krishnan-cdni-tm-has-00

"Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van" <ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl> Wed, 01 August 2012 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl>
X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216C811E834B for <cdni@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.263
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.766, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ncPQU72nt49h for <cdni@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fromintoutb.tno.nl (fromintoutb.tno.nl [134.221.1.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B4011E8345 for <cdni@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.77,696,1336341600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="15919128"
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.tno.nl) ([134.221.225.221]) by mailhost1b.tno.nl with ESMTP; 01 Aug 2012 23:21:55 +0200
Received: from EXC-MBX03.tsn.tno.nl ([169.254.3.96]) by EXC-CASHUB02.tsn.tno.nl ([134.221.225.221]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 23:21:55 +0200
From: "Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van" <ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl>
To: "cdni@ietf.org" <cdni@ietf.org>, "bhumip.khasnabish@zteusa.com" <bhumip.khasnabish@zteusa.com>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft draft-krishnan-cdni-tm-has-00
Thread-Index: AQHNcCtar9E3CMmGP0C7wFKwbIuN8pdFdwHE
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:21:53 +0000
Message-ID: <A1781B51-6C47-4C48-AF21-266534863EEC@tno.nl>
References: <CAEWORyd+ZKrg_=38bskGk=eNb3-dbFxhUNSu-g2=LT5RMq12RQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEWORyd+ZKrg_=38bskGk=eNb3-dbFxhUNSu-g2=LT5RMq12RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, nl-NL
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A1781B516C474C48AF21266534863EECtnonl_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [CDNi] Comments on draft draft-krishnan-cdni-tm-has-00
X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" <cdni.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cdni>, <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cdni>
List-Post: <mailto:cdni@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni>, <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:22:16 -0000

Hi Bhumip,


In response to your question during yesterday's CDNI meeting, I read your draft draft-krishnan-cdni-tm-has-00.


Since I'm not an expert on TCP and the way router queues are implemented, I can't comment on the more technical aspects of your draft. However, when looking at the rationale behind the draft I have some questions.


If I understand your draft correctly, your main premise is that in cases where HTTP Adaptive Streaming is used, the content acquisition interface between the dCDN and uCDN (which in itself is out-of-scope of the WG) could become congested. I have a number of questions related to this:


1) What I don't understand from your draft is what the relationship is between this supposed content congestion and the use of adaptive streaming. Of course, in peak hours, there will generally be more traffic across the link than outside peak hours. But isn't true regardless of the case of whether HAS is used or not?


2) Furthermore, you state that "The bandwidth needs of HAS is directly proportional to the number of active end users who are streaming video." Isn't the general idea behind using a (d)CDN that the necessary bandwidth between two CDNs is NOT directly proportional to the number of active end-users?


3) In section 3. you refer to Long-tail personalized content. I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean dynamic content that is being generated on a per-user basis by the uCDN or the CSP? If so, what would be the use case for wanting to have this content be delivered by a dCDN? Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of having a dCDN at all, since the content has to be delivered on a per-user basis by the uCDN anyway? If the uCDN has to deliver the content to the dCDN for each individual user, wouldn't it be more efficient for the uCDN to deliver this content to the end-user directly?


Best regards,


Ray


This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/emaildisclaimer