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

["GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER (JOSE JAVIER)" <[e-mail]>]

  hi Janet

i like your example about the explosion :-)
i have attached an image named Q-HTTP_phases.jpg for quick understanding  ( for people that have asked for it)

There are two ways to address an undesirable situation: "adaptative solutions" and "enhance QoS solutions"
For both cases Q-HTTP could be a handy tool

Regarding QoS solutions:
==================
If the files about the way to avoid the explosion are so important,
then these files could be downloaded using SLA , and for sure the user or the
content provider will pay for that.

user-----(pay per FTP with quality)---->content provider-------(pay for quality)--------> ISP

user-----(pay per game with quality)---->content provider-------(pay for quality)--------> ISP

user----( no pay anything)----->content provider ------( no pay for quality)----->ISP


video or videogame is not more important than FTP, and FTP is not more important than video.
 It depends on how much the content provider or the user is willing to pay for it with QoS

Regarding adaptative solutions:
==================
 Q-HTTP also may be used for detect packet loss and adjust FTP bitrate, or
change parallel FTP for sequential FTP. Q-HTTP is a tool. The decision to take when Q-HTTP alerts is open


- jose Javier

________________________________
De: Janet P Gunn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Enviado el: sábado, 13 de noviembre de 2010 15:48
Para: Henry Sinnreich
CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Mike Hammer (hmmr); httpstreaming; [e-mail]; Johansson S; GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER (JOSE JAVIER); Kathy McEwen; DIAZ VIZCAINO, LUIS MIGUEL (LUIS MIGUEL); Mikael Abrahamsson
Asunto: Re: [dispatch] [conex] [httpstreaming] Q-HTTP





> On 11/11/10 12:43 PM, "DIAZ VIZCAINO, LUIS MIGUEL (LUIS MIGUEL)"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >    Just a different approach. Think in a traffic jam. I know it
> would be nice
> > to live in a wonderful world with no jams, but they happen. Know
> compare you,
> > going back home from work, and an ambulance with someone dying inside.
> > Everybody gets away to let ambulance drive first. And that's OK.
> >
> >    Now think on Internet. You are playing a Real-Time game and
> your neighbours
> > are just downloading files. They can afford some amount of traffic loss
> > (+delay/jitter) since TCP retransmisions will do the trick (just will take a
> > little longer to get the job done) while you cannot afford losing
> > (+delaying/jitterin) your traffic because if it happens, your opponent will
> > blow you away from the arena. That's the point, all traffic flows
> are NOT the
> > same and need different SLAs.

I think your analogy is completely backwards.  Yes, everyone gets out of the way of the ambulance,
because the ambulance is more important.

But the real time game is NOT more important than downloading the file that contains the
information on how to turn off the flow of the natural gas pipeline when there is an explosion.

What you are proposing in your analogy is not that "everyone should get out of the way of the ambulance",
but that "everyone should get out of the brand new Ferrari so it can race with the Maserati."

Janet