IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [httpstreaming] Push Vs Pull Re: Current Status and Our Goal

Thomas Stockhammer <stockhammer@nomor.de> Mon, 18 October 2010 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <stockhammer@nomor.de>
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 920C83A6B1C for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 00:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.165
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
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 TOWqr+Vh+hZt for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 00:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de (mo-p00-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7738D3A68A7 for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 00:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1287386998; l=1566; s=domk; d=nomor.de; h=To:References:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From: Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH; bh=IO7NZvkI6kg+iaU8gm9BkM/YDRY=; b=aP5vfoMTNjtds5kUM5eUk9IdWY3Zc/vbIJO3XTQgEVUjc0R/VgiSGPTI/YzgecWAWMr Vq48Ml/nWFTkQ1gOP5ewvh5SEo61ptxmcFhIpzpsUjTU8q7xlZa26JpQgDRHB9b2z3TG/ E87yCrpu9F4Xq4O4/rESYLIzEYTmYB280VQ=
X-RZG-AUTH: :P3gLdkugevKirJkjH/RoTtk5THWq6nlFgKpnuMPeiu13+0wBefkJA5cHz4sK4A==
X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00
Received: from [172.16.1.2] (91-67-202-136-dynip.superkabel.de [91.67.202.136]) by post.strato.de (klopstock mo54) (RZmta 23.5) with ESMTP id N00939m9I78ADA ; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:29:55 +0200 (MEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Thomas Stockhammer <stockhammer@nomor.de>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <03c001cb6e95$3edf86d0$30298a0a@china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:29:55 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <588B9C79-E23E-4900-B2FC-6E6B034AD473@nomor.de>
References: <00df01cb5de2$2ac49730$4f548a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D5BEADB@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <03f901cb65a5$7ee4bc80$7cae3580$%roni@huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D5BEB08@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <074201cb66c1$1a192d50$4f548a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D5BF360@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <017101cb6924$bc093410$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D5BF70B@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <03ce01cb6b67$fdb9d910$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D689385@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <009c01cb6c03$f2125320$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D689412@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <022c01cb6c0b$5fc75490$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D68946C@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D6894A4@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <02d501cb6e87$9dc75dc0$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <03c001cb6e95$3edf86d0$30298a0a@china.huawei.com>
To: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: httpstreaming@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] Push Vs Pull Re: Current Status and Our Goal
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: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 07:28:48 -0000

On Oct 18, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Qin Wu wrote:

>> How would this work if you have only one bitrate on the server? Is your approach as follows:
>> 
>> Rather than offering the same content encoded at multiple bitrates and serving them based on what the client wants, you
>> wanna serve the content encoded at a single bitrate and by manipulating the transmission rate on the server (based on
>> server's knowledge of network and client), you "adaptively" send it. Is that the scenario you have in mind?
>> 
>> [Qin]: Personally that is what I am trying to look for. a single birate for live content may change at time which can be
>> realized by transcoding.
> 
> If you are saying a server doing transcoding for adaptation scales better than an http server serving client requests for different chunks, then I think you should make your arguments clear enough in the problem statement draft and see whether others think. To me, it is a losing proposition. 
> 
> [Qin]; for the live content consuming with thousands of consumers viewing at the same time, in my opinion, it may be a successful propsotion.

[T] Adaptation for each of the thousands of users!?  [\T]

---
Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stockhammer@nomor.de || phone +49 89 978980 02 || cell +491725702667 || http://www.nomor-research.com
Nomor Research GmbH  -  Sitz der Gesellschaft: München - Registergericht: München, HRB 165856 – Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE238047637 - Geschäftsführer: Dr. Thomas Stockhammer, Dr. Ingo Viering.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email