IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 01 May 2014 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
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 08B431A701A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 May 2014 11:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 wnhKAqqoEP_f for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 May 2014 11:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com [209.85.212.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95771A7018 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 May 2014 11:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id f8so1157646wiw.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 May 2014 11:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=sLKzOBr2zRuaPp2IeB7maQzY1MdOiNg3gb1nn+zeGVA=; b=Nr9jQN63wUTrPCWLqA2mO9WNbqaldWKYDB/gS48QtclBDUEBTzZHfJzUDhA6KuDqHI s7hFM5bERrwB5oW7xngTvZfFxtlikOzF6R+9bQJ0OAcVNm7p7j229XsqpOXxEQYvgFX2 uAbvQfGVr3Xe5MWTTG9lmuxsbg3ks572TiZHRrdYKqlqhago9r4HzC1TR5zmVfh3FUPf vaCcG9PV9i+491w4gTWMJXcHax8XNlB1hpoKPgyEsiV5mV9x3LPo7VX7zcasz3sb+Yo3 jjl+sSMpZnkkyMGhAtscavCot1zWyTy/D81H8lA044qM1W4tF7SgSk70Kun9MLCpB6U+ nkrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlKMmNuMtm4hfgUXpj+V+yZDWPK63hjSxYcaxGNsmfXGU2dTqKFlVB/WSaoAvRpX28Mt1nq
X-Received: by 10.194.187.107 with SMTP id fr11mr145014wjc.70.1398967445317; Thu, 01 May 2014 11:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f176.google.com (mail-we0-f176.google.com [74.125.82.176]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t18sm5116579wiv.16.2014.05.01.11.04.03 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 01 May 2014 11:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id q59so1154860wes.35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 May 2014 11:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.92.34 with SMTP id cj2mr3193849wib.15.1398967442404; Thu, 01 May 2014 11:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.181.136 with HTTP; Thu, 1 May 2014 11:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <28C7190C-B47A-4C31-9EA4-F55AD386507F@phonefromhere.com>
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>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 14:04:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtzaHGGB-97YY6PRVM=ZUf8fKycQgaKnNscR7UEtc-u0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043892b574feae04f85a7d66"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/E1rDArMEb9umnEGIUETBnIjc9x8
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 18:04:13 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 18:04:13 -0000

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.
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email