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

Mikael Abrahamsson <> Thu, 11 November 2010 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD4D3A67E6; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:01:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.657
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B5jNgH0QHr-A; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5DD3A69C2; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 501) id 37F499C; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:01:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3623B9A; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:01:43 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:01:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <01d801cb8083$8ca250f0$a5e6f2d0$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:29:25 -0800
Cc: "" <>, httpstreaming <>, "" <>, Ingemar Johansson S <>, "Mike Hammer \(hmmr\)" <>, "GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER \(JOSE JAVIER\)" <>
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [dispatch] [conex] Q-HTTP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network based HTTP Streaming discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:01:14 -0000


>   Just a different approach. Think in a traffic jam. I know it would be 
> nice to live in a wonderful world with no jams, but they happen. Know 
> compare you, going back home from work, and an ambulance with someone 
> dying inside. Everybody gets away to let ambulance drive first. And 
> that's OK.

When there is a traffic jam due to an accident it's ok. Where there is LA 
style traffic jams 12 hours of the day, that's not ok.

>   Now think on Internet. You are playing a Real-Time game and your 
> neighbours are just downloading files. They can afford some amount of 
> traffic loss (+delay/jitter) since TCP retransmisions will do the trick 
> (just will take a little longer to get the job done) while you cannot 
> afford losing (+delaying/jitterin) your traffic because if it happens, 
> your opponent will blow you away from the arena. That's the point, all 
> traffic flows are NOT the same and need different SLAs.

It would help the customer to get different treatment of his/her flows on 
the access. It would help the ISP and not the customer to do the same in 
the distribution/core. Who do we want to help? Is it the end user or is it 
the ISP? In the discussions in CONEX I mostly see people wanting to help 
the ISP, not the end user.

> - Enables network operators to generate more revenue for 
> "over-requirements". I dont think real-time was in mind whe Internet was 
> created and we need to provide ISPs with new tools like this.

"over-requirement" as in "I want to actually get what you promised to 
deliver to me"?

I don't buy it.

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: