Re: [conex] [httpstreaming] [dispatch] Q-HTTP

["Mcdysan, David E" <[e-mail]>]

Lars,

Thanks for sharing this post and reference.

I try to make a similar point in section 4.3 of http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-mcdysan-conex-other-usecases-00.txt

Some operators provision sufficient capacity at bottleneck points and/or make productive use of restoration capacity so that congestion rarely occurs. A much larger potential benefit than that offered by short term congestion control occurs if a means to motivate time shifting of traffic to off-peak periods can be developed.

Thanks,

Dave

________________________________________
From: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lars Eggert [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 9:02 PM
To: David Singer
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S; GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER (JOSE JAVIER); httpstreaming; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [conex] [httpstreaming] [dispatch]   Q-HTTP

On 2010-11-9, at 18:31, David Singer wrote:
> It is that there are two ways to solve a real-time bandwidth need.  One is to reserve bandwidth, manage QoS and so on;  one gets protocols and systems like diffserv, ATM, and so on.  The other is simply to have 'too much' of the resource.  Though it feels wrong, the latter often ends up being the cheaper and easier solution.  So, for example, voice over IP is getting used quite a lot, and to good effect, on the internet today not because we have successfully deployed any bandwidth reservation or QoS management protocols and systems, but because the available bandwidth is, for the most part, greatly in excess of what is needed, and the systems can adapt in real-time to what they get (rather than asking for what they want).  The same is true for multimedia delivery;  the complexity of RTP + TCP friendliness + QoS management is not worth it compared to having adaptable end-systems and overall more bandwidth than needed.

Fully agreed.

Folks who like pictures can take a look at https://fit.nokia.com/lars/talks/2008-mit-cfp.pdf, which gives much the same argument.

Lars