Re: [rmcat] How we should handle feedback, and where the congestion should run

Stefan Holmer <stefan@webrtc.org> Mon, 09 November 2015 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <holmer@google.com>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007D91B727C for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 00:01:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.288
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PhcA8MGxtaWX for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 00:01:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x229.google.com (mail-ig0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3800D1B727A for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 00:01:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by igcph11 with SMTP id ph11so21858970igc.1 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 00:01:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=webrtc_org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=AM951us95POvNgGfZFlmvtj+sF4XjCMJ7EzW6umxcGk=; b=xibgUqRJ+rnqN8OLJtaYgplZg9QYr15BW0jkjU5cW2cMBhx1VKa1uOXOzzE/1aDlxv C2rSFohX4mm5NYlPIawXHT1r+lrSaHwn+7VV3PIasIeJ1tOFuvl+Bf6FCOJJfgW81Kjc eX4j9PAbjO1OQ1a+asQI+bjuoMg8EuJ7dMbO09dpykMtGbTHvv9IBdwFZfv+YNaDqmAT I8+xan7W83FcSX6Ml8cGX+lmySwS+SVZb8geBlqA7S16xjibPZfXx0Xt8MMRxlKlrVQy floe4a6l11NQ7GwVSzBjUdE/qJ7aVyMqfVMSfIMlCqjQYmfKny88+T3aU5Kv2HXHGUHz 8a+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=AM951us95POvNgGfZFlmvtj+sF4XjCMJ7EzW6umxcGk=; b=T5Wmf1lPR3d8ekWyh0Eo+FC3eMAd9UzxCmaCCtquunRpI91apDl72UUzy/WrTzCMp/ CnTyVHGRbe3wD8loWcIVQVD2lQEZ/g5ljeWMrto8LkNck3W98q+TzQoIidNJaek9oOza tRebfxpPMLTNnONQieL+H4oMY+8WjUZe1WukvEUn3oBpY+/gEZclHShZHQaT0P5KLO2l 9UDBW0SNuX28Zx4b3v1BpVWVu3RXEXeX6VcHs6T9p6AU/Ky9yo44/qXtoyl7CAm163nR eUzMYMMieGWmDt81IuIRKYbz+jloxh5puQAQp7JDqKf7ybc7xfDD1K+DI/UOQnjt0ZeY CDEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQll2zjKV4IzCVNN+J6xsNaZ97QAEhdI72OWRFYBe2TftF0/RZaQF6VRpoCJ90YYko+Wn6di
X-Received: by 10.50.36.5 with SMTP id m5mr20552834igj.65.1447056100453; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 00:01:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <563BF7C3.40500@jesup.org> <2CEE6E71-BCDC-4778-88D1-8EDE87BAAE4D@ifi.uio.no> <563CD0BE.1010807@jesup.org> <D262BB29.29148%xiaoqzhu@cisco.com> <563D8F8A.1050406@jesup.org> <CAEdus3+nNUgHhZ+LjQ8rk+zTik4OXBoWHSdUnqS=mWBC-gTmbw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEdus3+nNUgHhZ+LjQ8rk+zTik4OXBoWHSdUnqS=mWBC-gTmbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stefan Holmer <stefan@webrtc.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 08:01:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEdus3+7gkRz5OWpsVJM=huaaE3q-U321j5vaU0YxGX=L4EcbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, rmcat@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013c69c0d6d40705241700a5"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/Aaf_ZCkpLqG5CjblkszBIJ6QdDY>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] How we should handle feedback, and where the congestion should run
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <rmcat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rmcat/>
List-Post: <mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 08:01:43 -0000

Sorry, accidentally sent too quickly...



On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:57 AM Stefan Holmer <stefan@webrtc.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 6:43 AM Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/6/2015 11:33 PM, Xiaoqing Zhu (xiaoqzhu) wrote:
>> > In the eval-test-case draft, there is currently one test case dedicated
>> > for exploring impact of two-way traffic (Sec. 5.3.  Congested Feedback
>> > Link with Bi-directional RMCAT flows). Some corresponding graphs can be
>> > found below (they may not reflect the most up-to-date algorithm
>> > performance).
>> >
>> > * NADA:http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-rmcat-4.pdf
>> > (page #9 and #10)
>> > * SCReAM:
>> >
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/11/09/rmcat/slides/slides-inte
>> > rim-2014-rmcat-1-1.pdf (page #9)
>> > (Sorry, I was not able to find one with GCC yet.).
>>
>
> GCC at:
>

Simulations at slides 33-35
Emulations at slides 42-43
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2015/07/19/rmcat/slides/slides-interim-2015-rmcat-1-2.pdf



>
>
>>
>> Thanks!  Those don't look too bad, though it can be hard to drill down
>> into the details due to the PDF and thickness of the lines (and
>> dense-ness of the graph); I found the closeups at the end of your pdf
>> especially interesting (though not focused on this case).  One question
>> that will be interesting as we develop a feedback mechanism is going to
>> be the requirements from the algorithms on it, and the bandwidth it uses.
>>
>> I note NADA seems to be slower to respond to delay, though it also seems
>> to do much better against competing TCP flows (and likely the two items
>> are linked, which will make for some interesting tradeoffs and tuning to
>> do).
>>
>> > Would like to know whether you think that current design of the test
>> case
>> > has captured gist of the issue encountered by two-way calls, or any
>> > suggestions on additional test scenarios in that regard?
>>
>> I think showing a graph similar to Scream's, with congested and
>> non-congested feedback paths is a useful comparison - much easier to see
>> the impact.  Feedback bandwidth would be useful, though that might be
>> fairly fixed right now (multiple of packet rate), so unless it's
>> surprising it may not need graphing (just noting on the graph).
>>
>> --
>> Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com
>> Please please please don't email randell-ietf@jesup.org!  Way too much
>> spam
>>
>>