Re: [httpstreaming] [dispatch] Q-HTTP

Adaptable non-interactive video delivery is suitable for congestion problems, but what about latency?
It is no possible to adapt to a large latency reducing video resolution.

I refer to the "interactive video" scenario, for example a virtualized videogame.
Video must be delivered to the final user quickly and final user press 
action controls which change the video in real-time. If final user wants to play to
"Street fighter" in a videoconsole located in the cloud, it is needed a mechanism for
Measuring and adjust latency, in both directions.

Even with overall more bandwidth than needed, the problem persists.

- Jose Javier

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 10 de noviembre de 2010 5:19
Para: Kathy McEwen
CC: Lars Eggert; David Singer; Ingemar Johansson S; GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER (JOSE JAVIER); httpstreaming; dispatch@ietf.org; conex@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: [httpstreaming] [dispatch] 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
> 