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

Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv> Tue, 16 November 2010 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tme@americafree.tv>
X-Original-To: httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962D93A6D0B; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:49:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dg0JkQd79wV1; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:49:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.americafree.tv (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C26B3A6D81; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:49:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by mail.americafree.tv (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB8A93D48A0; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:50:39 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
In-Reply-To: <3349FECF788C984BB34176D70A51782F1687808C@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:50:38 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7C3A8DA4-18F3-4AA4-A2F4-325FC2D817DA@americafree.tv>
References: <3349FECF788C984BB34176D70A51782F106701E2@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1104E0EB-CBAD-4001-962F-9D5F8B856D42@nokia.com> <01d801cb8083$8ca250f0$a5e6f2d0$@iridescentnetworks.com> <1E1ED4EA-7CB5-4A86-BD3F-B1F5F72EF456@netflix.com> <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7031F0C1F@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <EF84DC37-8CB6-4DB7-85AC-E091D90FF075@apple.com> <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7031F0CA2@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011102303170.2639@uplift.swm.pp.se> <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7031F10D0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011111616310.2639@uplift.swm.pp.se> <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7031F1154@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011111806430.2639@uplift.swm.pp.se> <3349FECF788C984BB34176D70A51782F16877F3C@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011111957580.2639@uplift.swm.pp.se> <3349FECF788C984BB34176D70A51782F16877F68@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011112134270.2639@uplift.swm.pp. se> <3349FECF788C984BB34176D70A51782F1687808C@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "DIAZ VIZCAINO, LUIS MIGUEL (LUIS MIGUEL)" <luismi.diaz@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>, httpstreaming <httpstreaming@ietf.org>, "conex@ietf.org" <conex@ietf.org>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "Mike Hammer \(hmmr\)" <hmmr@cisco.com>, "GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER \(JOSE JAVIER\)" <jose_javier.garcia_aranda@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [dispatch] [conex] Q-HTTP
X-BeenThere: httpstreaming@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network based HTTP Streaming discussion list <httpstreaming.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming>, <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/httpstreaming>
List-Post: <mailto:httpstreaming@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming>, <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:49:57 -0000

On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:12 AM, DIAZ VIZCAINO, LUIS MIGUEL (LUIS MIGUEL) wrote:

> 
> You said:
> 
> "Packet prioritization is only of value when the network is full. QoS is only of interest when BE works badly."
> 
> Then, why on earth ALL ISPs are using QoS in THEIR networks to guarantee their own VoIP and Broadcast TV services to their customers???
> 
> QoS is ALWAYS a MUST for ISPs to ensure real-time services at any moment. Q-HTTP is trying to open up that window to other third parties.
> 

I have three personal / office ISP accounts for Internet access. If any are offering QOS as a service, they sure haven't told me. (One, the
cable company, does do a "walled garden" type solution for IPTV, but I don't think that that is the type of QOS you are talking about.)  

Regards
Marshall


> And about "network state", there are different solutions to implement this, one includes network state, BUT IT IS NOT THE ONLY ONE. Indeed we tested one alternative in our lab with actual equipment....
> 
>    Saludos,
>         Luismi
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se] 
> Enviado el: jueves, 11 de noviembre de 2010 21:44
> Para: GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER (JOSE JAVIER)
> CC: dispatch@ietf.org; httpstreaming; conex@ietf.org; Mike Hammer (hmmr); Ingemar Johansson S; Kathy McEwen; DIAZ VIZCAINO, LUIS MIGUEL (LUIS MIGUEL)
> Asunto: RE: [dispatch] [conex] [httpstreaming] Q-HTTP
> 
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER (JOSE JAVIER) wrote:
> 
>> Service providers are worried about ARPU. It is decreasing becasue the 
>> "exaflood" phenomenon. The exponential traffic can not be sustained by 
>> the network, with incremental increases in bandwidth.
> 
> I don't get it. Are you saying that because there is more traffic, the user is paying less money per month? Yes, profit per customer might be down, but why should traffic volume decrease revenue?
> 
>> These ISP capabilities can be priced to developers/content providers, 
>> increasing ISP revenues. Capabilities such as location, presence, billing, security, QoS....
> 
> I agree that an ISP can be a micropayment provider and also provice some location information.
> 
>> One of the most important is QoS. If developers can not find 
>> profitable business Models, innovation is compromised. QoS means a mix 
>> of traffic engineering + priorization + etc
> 
> Packet prioritization is only of value when the network is full. QoS is only of interest when BE works badly.
> 
>> Now imagine an ISP which offer "intelligent" QoS ( based on Q-HTTP) to 
>> enable virtualization of games (like www.onlive.com, but using the 
>> network instead locating servers at last mille)
> 
> I don't get this either. You can't play an FPS with tens of milliseconds of network delay, so you need to locate servers close to the customers to keep latency low, plus you also don't want the access latency to eat up your latency budget so ADSL and cable goes out the window anyway, the only thing left is the sub-millisecond latency of ETTH.
> 
> Btw, I think Q-HTTP is a horrible idea. It seems require a lot of state in the network. State is expensive. What happened to KISS principle?
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
> _______________________________________________
> httpstreaming mailing list
> httpstreaming@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming
>