Re: [icnrg] low-latency and scalable video distribution

[Jens Finkhaeuser <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

quick background: my team and I wrote p2p video streaming protocols back in the day for Joost (2006 on-demand, 2008 live, give or take). A couple of years ago I realized that similar efforts tended to yield worse results (not in every aspect, this is very much a summary), and I sought funding for developing something new along those lines again. I received a grant, covid messed with my timing, and now I'm still in the earlier stages of it.

The TL;DR is, I would very much like to contribute solutions to this problem. It's just a tad too early for a draft yet. Maybe I can get something together before the autumn conference.

Happy to discuss here (or elsewhere)!

Jens

------- Original Message -------

On Thursday, March 24th, 2022 at 09:08, Dirk Kutscher <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Luca,
> 

> > I was aware of these preliminary discussions but I'm still trying to
> > 

> > understand
> > 

> > the benefits of media over QUIC, beyond going through UDP port 443.
> 

> Yes, exactly. IMO most of the arguments have to do with interests of existing stakeholders, existing code bases etc.
> 

> But it should be mentioned that the aspired benefits from using some form of multicast cannot be achieved in connection-based streaming – unless you are not actually using QUIC...
> 

> Or, unless you are creating an overlay QUIC relay network – not sure that's going to help with the low-latency...
> 

> > M. Papalini et al., "On the Scalability of WebRTC with
> > 

> > Information-Centric Networking," 2020 IEEE International Symposium on
> > 

> > Local and Metropolitan Area Networks (LANMAN, 2020, pp. 1-6, doi:
> > 

> > 10.1109/LANMAN49260.2020.9153228.
> 

> Thanks – yes, I'm aware of that paper – good work.
> 

> > ICN looks like a perfect match for these applications.
> 

> Yes, I think many people would agree. For new-generation distribution (and possibly ingestion), IMO there is real value in having a unified system and protocol architecture for both unicast and multicast, and for both VoD and live streaming.
> 

> However, I think it would be good to demonstrate experience with these large-scale low-latency scenarios more.
> 

> > There is a big hicn code refactoring coming this week, or early next week
> > 

> > in case all tests take longer to pass, in the linux foundation repository,
> > 

> > with major emphasis on these use cases.
> > 

> > At least for those who are interested in the code base.
> 

> Great – looking forward to it. Please announce it on this list.
> 

> Thanks,
> 

> Dirk
> 

> > Luca
> > 

> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:20 AM Dirk Kutscher [e-mail] wrote:
> > 

> > > Hello,
> > > 

> > > in case you missed it, the MOQ (Media over QUIC,
> > > 

> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/agenda-113-moq-06) BOF
> > > 

> > > at IETF-113 is discussing low-latency video distribution use cases.
> > > 

> > > The idea is to reduce latency for live streaming, i.e., achieving
> > > 

> > > interactive conferencing latency without losing scalability.
> > > 

> > > The current thinking is using either RUSH (
> > > 

> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kpugin-rush-00) or SRT over
> > > 

> > > QUIC (meh ;-).
> > > 

> > > I believe that eventual solutions will have to do with stream
> > > 

> > > prioritization, "relaxed" congestion control and incorporating the concept
> > > 

> > > of relays.
> > > 

> > > Other topics/ideas that came up:
> > > 

> > > - application layer multicast
> > > 

> > > - local retransmissions
> > > 

> > > - content naming
> > > 

> > > Maybe something to look into from an ICN perspective...
> > > 

> > > Dirk
> > > 

> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 

> > > icnrg mailing list
> > > 

> > > [e-mail]
> > > 

> > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
> 

> > _______________________________________________
> > 

> > icnrg mailing list
> > 

> > [e-mail]
> > 

> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg_______________________________________________
> 

> icnrg mailing list
> 

> [e-mail]
> 

> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg