IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 + 13

Arno Bakker <arno@cs.vu.nl> Wed, 16 May 2012 07:13 UTC

Return-Path: <a.bakker@vu.nl>
X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF4621F85F1 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 00:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.384, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hU956QWLTAZE for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 00:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6AD21F8613 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2012 00:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PEXHB012B.vu.local (130.37.236.67) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:13:44 +0200
Received: from [130.161.211.249] (130.37.238.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:13:43 +0200
Message-ID: <4FB353E6.5060401@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:14:46 +0200
From: Arno Bakker <arno@cs.vu.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Picconi Fabio <Fabio.Picconi@technicolor.com>
References: <OF97B14220.883D5968-ON482579DB.003454AD-482579DB.0035B23D@zte.com.cn> <2012041216393612240745@chinamobile.com>, <4F869775.6010007@cs.vu.nl> <2012041815001581776052@chinamobile.com>, <4F8E6DCE.90101@cs.vu.nl> <20120418183444961415101@chinamobile.com> <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204EB1CD37A@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <4FB0FAEA.8010504@cs.vu.nl> <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204EB26DD39@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <4FB20BD5.6010607@cs.vu.nl> <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204EB26E7D4@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
In-Reply-To: <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204EB26E7D4@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [130.37.238.20]
Cc: ppsp <ppsp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 + 13
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: arno@cs.vu.nl
List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol <ppsp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ppsp>, <mailto:ppsp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ppsp>
List-Post: <mailto:ppsp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ppsp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp>, <mailto:ppsp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 07:13:46 -0000

On 15/05/2012 15:04, Picconi Fabio wrote:
> I'm not sure I follow you.
>
> First, I assumed three chunks per second because there is a paper
> that suggests that this is a good value [1]. But the actual chunk
> rate does not change the calculation (more chunks per seconds means
> both more bins and more ranges).
>

Hi

I think we agree that the overhead of both solutions is small even worst 
case. I just added a level of detail to make sure we didn't miss 
anything given UDP induces a chunksize of 1K, to be transmitted in 
groups for bandwidth utilization and optimal sharing (your ref).

The only difference is that I prefer bins such that there is a single 
unit in the whole system that works conveniently with Merkle hash trees.

CU,
      Arno

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email