Re: [httpstreaming] Agenda and Slides

Xiangsong Cui <Xiangsong.Cui@huawei.com> Thu, 11 November 2010 09:10 UTC

Return-Path: <Xiangsong.Cui@huawei.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 DA1733A6A4E for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:10:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.768
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.526, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 lx-e-GkakFco for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:10:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45AC43A6991 for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:10:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LBP00F1XQTQZF@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for httpstreaming@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:10:38 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LBP00D47QTPLE@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for httpstreaming@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:10:37 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [172.24.1.3] (Forwarded-For: [130.129.116.45]) by szxmc03-in.huawei.com (mshttpd); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:10:37 +0800
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:10:37 +0800
From: Xiangsong Cui <Xiangsong.Cui@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <20D6E2C9-8E84-42E8-8145-0AF0FE575AFE@cisco.com>
To: David R Oran <oran@cisco.com>
Message-id: <fba2dcf3187a6.187a6fba2dcf3@huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)
Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_Ed3GkcOqDqk0gnonIj3ZYg)"
Content-language: zh-CN
X-Accept-Language: zh-CN
Priority: normal
References: <AANLkTimsEDGkDVjTj0uVg7g4h+L8JtmM7FJMRM4TvWtv@mail.gmail.com> <01df01cb8089$568d0b30$03a72190$@iridescentnetworks.com> <CEA40436-871D-4748-80F0-1D515E7ED054@netflix.com> <fba7d8a4195b6.195b6fba7d8a4@huawei.com> <20D6E2C9-8E84-42E8-8145-0AF0FE575AFE@cisco.com>
Cc: httpstreaming <httpstreaming@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] Agenda and Slides
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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:10:25 -0000

Hi David,

In fact I have no clear picture in my mind, I am thinking,

#1, It seems the current adaptive HTTP streaming is based on endpoint (client or server), is it possible or useful that the middle-box trigers stream rate adjustment? 
    In my mind, a similar case is ECN mechanism, router forwards IP packets between TCP endpoints. The router doesn't support TCP protocol, but the router can be involved in TCP flow control (or TCP rate adjustment) by some IP header indication. Can the middlebox also influence HTTP streaming by some mechanism more effectively? I think network-based or network-involved HTTP streaming mechanism may be a supplement to client-based mechanism. 
RED is OK, but whether it is better that rate adjustment happens earlier than packet drop? Some resource in the foregoing path is wasted by dropped packets ...

#2, In mobile envirment, network has a more clear map (channel, bandwidth, etc.) than the client, if the network can trace the mobile client, can the network make some proactive operation on HTTP streaming? I'm not sure.

Best Regards
Xiangsong


----- 原邮件 -----
发件人: David R Oran <oran@cisco.com>
日期: 星期三, 十一月 10日, 2010 下午11:52
主题: Re: [httpstreaming] Agenda and Slides
收件人: Xiangsong Cui <Xiangsong.Cui@huawei.com>
抄送: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>om>, httpstreaming <httpstreaming@ietf.org>

> 
> On Nov 10, 2010, at 12:13 AM, Xiangsong Cui wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I agree Kathy here.
> > And, Mark, yes, you are right, it drops packets. But this is 
> only a passive reaction, I think it is better to achieve some 
> active operation, or proactive operation (if possible), that would 
> be perfact.
> > 
> Why? This is not at all obvious to some of us, unless by 
> "proactive" you mean turning on existing machinery that is not yet 
> universally deployed, like RED and ECN. There is at least some 
> evidence that currently measured poor adaptive streaming behaviors 
> can be explained by tail-drop routers hanging around all over the 
> place. TCP is known to behave badly under heavy load with tail-
> drop queuing. I think you'd agree that it's a whole lot easier to 
> turn on  well understood, standardized and nearly universally 
> implemented techniques at the network layer than it it is stumble 
> around trying to invent new application and HTTP machinery to try 
> to fake it out.
> 
> We also don't fully understand the effect of allowing adaptive 
> streaming clients to compete only against each other with no cross 
> traffic present to inject enough noise to drive the adaptation 
> algorithms. The deployments today are without putting the traffic 
> in a separate QoS class since they run over-the-top on BE service. 
> It is far from clear that removing the cross-traffic induced 
> bandwidth variation will make things better - it might, counter-
> intuitively, make things worse!
> 
> > I think these jobs are worthy our attention.
> > 
> I do not think the case has yet been made, although I think you'll 
> find we're all open minded and willing to listen.
> 
> With respect to the mobile environment specifically, there is an 
> obvious space/time/computation/bandwidth tradeoff with respect to 
> multi-rate coding (upon which adaptive HTTP streaming depends). If 
> you only have a few rates to play with, it's obviously hard to to 
> optimal bandwidth packing on radio channels that don't support 
> enough users to satisfy the "law of large numbers". It's even 
> harder to do it with good fairness properties. There are many ways 
> to skin this cat though:
> 
> - spend the cycles on the encoders and space in the caches to have 
> finer rate quantization in the multi-rate coding.
> - match the encoding rates to to the radio channel allocation chunks
> - transrate a higher rate down to fit in the allocation for a 
> given mobile user if that would result in better QoE than shifting 
> them down to the next lower rate.
> 
> However, I'd like to observe that NONE of these techniques has 
> much (or at least very little) to do with the protocols and 
> algorithms for adaptive HTTP streaming.
> 
> There may be some small tweaks that one might do though. For 
> example, there might be useful transrating hints in server 
> manifests to tell streaming servers whether they are permitted to 
> transrate a given profile, and hints in client manifests to allow 
> them to request a transrate down as opposed to shifting to the 
> next lower coding rate. Alternatively, the manifests could just 
> lie about the number of profiles, and allow servers to 
> "synthesize" the intermediate profiles by transrating.
> 
> As a parting homily to those who think reservations and admission 
> control are always superior to adaptation in their ability to 
> deliver QoE, remember that:
> 
> "The purpose of bandwidth reservation and admission control is to 
> say NO, not to say YES". If you can always say YES, you don't need 
> it, and if you say NO a lot, you are just quantizing unfairness 
> into a boolean."
> 
> DaveO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Best Regards
> > Xiangsong
> > 
> > 
> > ----- 原邮件 -----
> > 发件人: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
> > 日期: 星期三, 十一月 10日, 2010 下午12:24
> > 主题: Re: [httpstreaming] Agenda and Slides
> > 收件人: Kathy McEwen <kathy@iridescentnetworks.com>
> > 抄送: httpstreaming <httpstreaming@ietf.org>
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >> 
> >> On Nov 9, 2010, at 7:42 PM, "Kathy McEwen" 
> >> <kathy@iridescentnetworks.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> After doing some digging on the various
> >>> protocols (RTMP/http, RTSP, HTML5/http, etc... ), we found 
> that 
> >> all of them
> >>> that are doing any kind of adaptive rate streaming, but they 
> do 
> >> not today
> >>> incorporate the messages/control mechanisms to allow for the 
> >> network to take
> >>> control and adapt the rate of the video.
> >> 
> >> But it does! It drops packets, causing a congestion response 
> from 
> >> TCP causing in turn an adaptation by the application. The 
> network 
> >> is completely in control of the packet delivery rate, which the 
> >> application knows and adapts to.
> >> 
> >> This is the baseline, which is so simple and applicable across 
> >> myriad access technologies. New mechanisms need to justify 
> >> themselves against this baseline.
> >> 
> >> ...Mark 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> httpstreaming mailing list
> >> httpstreaming@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming
> >> 
> > <c00111037.vcf>_______________________________________________
> > httpstreaming mailing list
> > httpstreaming@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming
> 
>