Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion control (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-congestion-00.txt)

[Henrik Lundin <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Soo-Hyun Choi <[e-mail]>wrote:

> A question and a suggestion.
>
>
>
> >>>>
> >>>> 4. Section 4.
> >>>>
> >>>> "This algorithm is run every time a receive report arrives at the
> >>>>    sender, which will happen [[how often do we expect? and why?]].  If
> >>>>    no receive report is recieved within [[what timeout?]], the
> algorithm
> >>>>    will take action as if all packets in the interval have been lost.
> >>>>    [[does that make sense?]]"
> >>>>
> >>>> The transmission of receiver reports is highly dependent on RTP
> profile,
> >>>> the RTCP bandwidth, trr-int parameter and any feedback events.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I start with assuming AVPF which seems reasonable in most browser
> to
> >>>> browser case with our current proposals for RTP support. Then if there
> >>>> are no feedback events the transmission of receiver reports will occur
> >>>> as often as the bandwidth allows, but no more often than the value of
> >>>> trr-int parameter.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is might be worth mentioning that I do expect trr-int to be set
> to
> >>>> avoid RTCP reporting to often due to the relatively high RTCP
> bandwidth
> >>>> values that will be set due to the multiplexing of audio and video in
> a
> >>>> single RTP session. Thus avoiding that RTCP rates are as high or
> larger
> >>>> than the audio streams they report in steady state.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed.  This is where my plans to suggest a baseline algorithm that
> >>> melds
> >>> the reception data of all the streams in the PeerConnection may be a
> >>> significant advantage over doing bandwidth estimation on each stream
> >>> independently.  We'll see if I can make the idea work, but there are
> some
> >>> significant advantages if it does.  If not, we can estimate in each
> >>> channel
> >>> independently as per the Google algorithm.
> >>>
> >>> You can also use rtcp-fb PLI/etc events to hang these reports off of,
> >>> increasing
> >>> the frequency they get through with minimal extra bandwidth use.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> When feedback events occur the stack will have the choice of sending a
> >>>> RTCP RR, that is a choice provided due to the reduced size RTCP
> >>>> specification included. But if the loss cumulative count diff is
> >>>> non-zero it might be worth mandating that the RR/SR is included in any
> >>>> such feedback RTCP packet.
> >>>
> >>> Exactly - or a TMMBR with the results of the receiver-side bandwidth
> >>> calculations.
> >>>
> >>>> For that reason causing a feedback event when there is losses and
> >>>> schedule them using the early algorithm may be a good choice to ensure
> >>>> timely reporting of any loss.
> >>>>
> >>>> If one uses AVP then the RTCP timing rules will give you when you
> >>>> transmit RTCP feeedback and thus the parameterization becomes central
> >>>> here. A clear issue is if people uses the minimal interval of 5
> seconds
> >>>> or the 360/Session_BW(in kbps). I would note that 5 seconds is very
> long
> >>>> in adaptation situations.
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
> >
> > In the proposed algorithm, the RTCP interval adds to the system response
> > time. The response time governs the bandwidth increase rate so that the
> step
> > into over-use will have a limited delay build-up before it can be
> detected
> > and mitigated. Thus, a long RTCP interval results in a slow adaptation,
> but
> > it should still be stable.
> >
>
> I wonder how would you guarantee that such a long RTCP interval
> doesn't result in instability when estimating bandwidth? Typically, a
> delay-based CC algorithm can be vulnerable when timer become
> inacurate. I suspect the delayed RTCP feedback can calculate available
> bandwidth correctly. Why not use per-packet based feedback (using
> AVPF, for example) in order not to cause any harm with this kind of
> situation?
>
I agree that more frequent feedback does improve the bandwidth estimation.
No doubt about that.


> I would think that a CC mechanism, at least, should be able to
> calculate and suggest right/correct rate to the upper layer's codec so
> that it could determine whether it actually increase/decrease encoding
> rate or not, depending upon CC's suggested rate.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Soo-Hyun
>



-- 
Henrik Lundin | WebRTC Software Eng | [e-mail] | [phone]