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

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER (JOSE JAVIER) wrote:

> Since several years ago, ARPU is frozen and even it has been reduced a 
> little. But traffic grows each year, and as you say, profit goes down. I 
> have check ARPU from Spanish operators and they are reduced

Yes, but the ARPU doesn't go down because traffic increases, it goes down 
due to competition and increased market penetration.

> Each year, a little, but the investments in network must increase to support the traffic growing.

Yes. That means profit is down.

> Priorization reduce queue times, with network full or not. For example, 
> IPTV services offered by operators uses priorization. But do not reduce 
> QoS to priorization. There are more operations involved in QoS.

Prioritization on the access line is good. Prioritization done because you 
want to flatline your distribution/core at peak times is bad.

> online gaming, in which latencies sometimes makes not possible to play 
> against users located in other countries, and in that case constraints 
> are not very restricted , however without QoS, they are impossible to 
> achieve today.

With hot potato routing, high latency to other countries depend on either 
bad network design or physical constraints when it comes to speed of light 
in fiber. QoS can't solve neither.

> Hard-core gamers have a high willingness to pay for virtualized games, 
> but today content providers can not offer virtualized games because 
> there is not QoS on demand in Internet.

Hard-core gamers won't accept 50ms of keypress/action delay.

> Have you read the draft? I promise you that Q-HTTP perhaps has an 
> horrible name, but it is KISS, for sure. It is application level, and 
> Q-HTTP alerts can be used for a lot of possibilities from adapting 
> mechanisms ( reduce bitrate or functionalities)  to priorization , 
> reservation, or whatever. It is not said what to do with the alerts in 
> the draft. It is only a powerful tool.

I started reading the draft but fell ill after reading it a while. It 
seems to do a lot of testing. We don't need more testing, we need 
performance information for existing traffic, not more test traffic.

And yes, Q-HTTP is HORRRIBLE name. And no, it's not KISS. Just the size 
of the draft and the number of sections says it's not KISS.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]