Re: [httpstreaming] [dispatch] Q-HTTP

"Mike Hammer (hmmr)" <hmmr@cisco.com> Tue, 16 November 2010 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <hmmr@cisco.com>
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 A5F633A6D8C; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:09:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 PrDqIQsOhIRI; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:09:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8595D3A6C89; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:09:10 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiYEAANY4kytJV2c/2dsb2JhbACUII5AcaR5myiFSwSEWokQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,206,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="182858842"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2010 18:09:53 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAGI9rXB010035; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:09:53 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:09:53 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:09:52 -0600
Message-ID: <C4064AF1C9EC1F40868C033DB94958C7032A5A89@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F8AE8229-6EE8-432D-ABBC-8B3A35181D71@americafree.tv>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [httpstreaming] [dispatch] Q-HTTP
Thread-Index: AcuFrXy27IEAx05lRCSpS4xFl5NZUAAC8SYQ
References: <3349FECF788C984BB34176D70A51782F106701E2@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com><6750274E2CC345C18EDE9FDDD59F24FA@china.huawei.com><3349FECF788C984BB34176D70A51782F1067054D@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com><DBB1DC060375D147AC43F310AD987DCC180E504600@ESESSCMS0366.eemea.ericsson.se><3349FECF788C984BB34176D70A51782F168772C1@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com><EAA2CFBF-9434-4E52-A586-7AE5F665A9DF@apple.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> <F8AE8229-6EE8-432D-ABBC-8B3A35181D71@americafree.tv>
From: "Mike Hammer (hmmr)" <hmmr@cisco.com>
To: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme@americafree.tv>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2010 18:09:53.0885 (UTC) FILETIME=[77FF38D0:01CB85B9]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:05:38 -0800
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org, httpstreaming <httpstreaming@ietf.org>, conex@ietf.org, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "GARCIA ARANDA, JOSEJAVIER \(JOSE JAVIER\)" <jose_javier.garcia_aranda@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [dispatch] 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 18:09:12 -0000

Marshall,

It is over-provisioned if a large percentage of time, the majority of
capacity is sitting idle, versus time-shifting applications flows that
can be time shifted.

FEC does absolutely nothing to solve the latency and jitter issue.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@americafree.tv] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 11:43 AM
To: Mike Hammer (hmmr)
Cc: Mark Watson; Kathy McEwen; dispatch@ietf.org; httpstreaming;
conex@ietf.org; Ingemar Johansson S; GARCIA ARANDA, JOSEJAVIER (JOSE
JAVIER)
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [dispatch] Q-HTTP


On Nov 10, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Mike Hammer (hmmr) wrote:

> Nice theory.  Until it gets down to who is going to pay for the
> over-provisioning.

It is a mistake to call it over-provisioning. (Anything needed for
proper performance I would call proper provisioning.) And, of course,
the
customers pay for it. (It is interesting that no one ever seems to ask
who pays for QOS.)

It is a question of where is it better to put resources, and I think
that there is a long history to show that in many (not all) situations
it is better to put resources in provisioning than in QOS. 

I also think that a modest amount of FEC would go a long way  to address
concerns about real-time traffic, and I surprised that this is not
already used routinely. 

Regards
Marshall 

> 
> Is the ARPU going to go up?  Are content distributors willing to pay
> more to send that data?
> 
> Also, note how the volume of traffic always seems to expand to fill
the
> BW available.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Mark Watson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:19 PM
> To: Kathy McEwen
> Cc: dispatch@ietf.org; httpstreaming; conex@ietf.org; Ingemar
Johansson
> S; Lars Eggert; GARCIA ARANDA, JOSEJAVIER (JOSE JAVIER)
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] [httpstreaming] Q-HTTP
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Nov 9, 2010, at 7:01 PM, "Kathy McEwen"
> <kathy@iridescentnetworks.com> wrote:
> 
>> One problem with the voice analogy is that the sheer volume of data
>> traversing the web today is not driven by voice...it's video...and
> it's not
>> even a fraction of the viewing that folks are doing of broadcast
> content.  A
>> solution that depends on "simply" having too much bandwidth, is that
> someone
>> is paying for it.  Eventually it hits someone's pocket books....and
if
> there
>> isn't sufficient revenue to cover the costs, the too much does
> degrade.
>> Today the mass media is consumed via cheap broadcast technologies...
> why
>> shouldn't the web (fixed and mobile) be as cheap AND as good??  
>> 
> 
> It should, the question is what is the cheapest way to do it. QoS is
> expensive too. I tend to agree with the thesis below that history is
> telling us that avoiding scarcity in the first place is cheaper than
> rationing here.
> 
> ...Mark
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: httpstreaming-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:httpstreaming-bounces@ietf.org]
>> On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 8:02 PM
>> To: David Singer
>> Cc: Ingemar Johansson S; GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER (JOSE JAVIER);
>> httpstreaming; dispatch@ietf.org; conex@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> httpstreaming mailing list
>> httpstreaming@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> _______________________________________________
> httpstreaming mailing list
> httpstreaming@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming
>