Re: [rtcweb] Pictures of congestion control on the Internet - which is more realistic?

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Thu, 01 May 2014 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D4E1A0923 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 May 2014 11:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 zs7IFEtWDAaF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 May 2014 11:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out4.uio.no (mail-out4.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9B21A08B3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 May 2014 11:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx2.uio.no ([129.240.10.30]) by mail-out4.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1Wfvne-0000vQ-0O; Thu, 01 May 2014 20:33:38 +0200
Received: from ti0034a400-3556.bb.online.no ([85.167.44.241] helo=[10.0.0.5]) by mail-mx2.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1Wfvnd-0006eo-B9; Thu, 01 May 2014 20:33:37 +0200
References: <5357B281.1030900@alvestrand.no> <CAD5OKxvpse7_aCTMNvvt6_LBMXMyXKWoSpOUnmXMTv-O0u8Kug@mail.gmail.com> <4A607E3C-B0A3-450E-863C-8E71C8EFC191@cisco.com> <28C7190C-B47A-4C31-9EA4-F55AD386507F@phonefromhere.com> <CAD5OKxtzaHGGB-97YY6PRVM=ZUf8fKycQgaKnNscR7UEtc-u0g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxtzaHGGB-97YY6PRVM=ZUf8fKycQgaKnNscR7UEtc-u0g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-5B2D11CC-D0D5-4077-90A7-E633CCBB6B35"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <2D737407-E40F-45DF-8080-DD71026E6066@ifi.uio.no>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D167)
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 20:33:34 +0200
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 4 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 4 sum msgs/h 1 total rcpts 15854 max rcpts/h 44 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 39870CE3272F2C3BED6C91EA48967C8893EF54AB
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 85.167.44.241 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/3FOOTY5j5lq0tkKpxd7Mr_p479c
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Pictures of congestion control on the Internet - which is more realistic?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 18:33:44 -0000


Sent from my iPhone

> On 1. mai 2014, at 20:04, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> wrote:
>> Lets not give up on this.
> 
> Nobody argues we should give up on this, but using an adaptive rate audio codec does not remove the need for QOS.
>  
>> 
>> It is also worth noting that cell phones can do this already, selecting the AMR mode according to the link capacity -  so there is a proof-by-example :-)
> 
> On cell phone networks voice traffic is treated differently then data so, in fact, there is QOS in place on the cell data link.
> 
> The whole argument is if application level rate adaptation is enough or QOS support is needed. I would say rate adaptation helps, but QOS is still needed.

app level can only operate on traffic coming from one host; it can't make my high-pri flow more important than *your* low-pri flow...


> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>  
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb