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

Roman Shpount <> Wed, 23 April 2014 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABADC1A03DB for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pnxlEwrAMvzs for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28191A0104 for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l18so969177wgh.4 for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=QIF3/7O9tnYyn5ZJJYV8WvanOSQhVjBecWj5ZxJZ8jY=; b=C5aoQ5dra1NN46SY0M13wcYR12wvABmwq0sE4PJ9XXXxsUZQBxfSmSXtft++ZaWsaB m1ORnbQ2vhXYy8EmZW0KYbrCYuSlW1oUP5gIhkIKJ3Q3qhQlTjCBj0tcN/st7mf3F4w/ xxoPN/0wR7QuFnWb+G4mw0/KBPlCy+ykFQFct8b/BpJahlCI6JnBX48JYeRKbO4Hb9/j fEB656rRY/2jZkrnOxkQ6qDhx069lH8tXFSirAlqUetsjMAHfWpZ4LOocXCtoljsIogh 45vARlMARAb0StBIPo/KezJld7nfSrGmdjM8I05KbPSgq3ZEddwF++wttbrk2aF+3Wd6 dDSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkwVLuJom3fBjl3it5UDXcozxxCw6K8MOGO8cSbI2EJc9Dfm2jf5gkInNr7aO49DYqLMXZD
X-Received: by with SMTP id cf1mr2310909wib.1.1398265376366; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id h10sm4752317wix.2.2014. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d1so5070048wiv.1 for <>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id li5mr2162829wic.19.1398265374790; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:02:54 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Roman Shpount <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c38cc2f75ddf04f7b70699"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Pictures of congestion control on the Internet - which is more realistic?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:03:13 -0000

I would say that some video end points have congestion back off.  Almost
all audio end points have none. Based on this, most UDP endpoints do not
deal well with congestion. Ideally this should change to support better
bandwidth management. Futhermore, reliably transmitting real time media
over public internet would also require changes to biffer management
algorithms in routers, which will, in turn, affect congestion handling
strategies in the end points.

On Apr 23, 2014 8:31 AM, "Harald Alvestrand" <> wrote:
> I quote Karl's piece below, because I want other's opinion of whether
it's a realistic picture.
> My impression is that it is not - in particular that:
> - Lots of interactive traffic goes over the Internet today without layer
2 separation
> - All UDP endpoints that use the open Internet have some form of backoff
on congestion - using delay, packet drop or (most likely) both to detect
> I'm writing the transport document based on those assumptions - that we
should specify something that will work as well as it can over an Internet
that does not care, and try to allow for better things to come along later.
> Am I wrong to write it like this?
> Harald
> ------------------------------------
> [Karl] I wrote this sometime before, regarding how QoS over the internet
> works in general - may be useful for understanding
> For better understanding of these QoS/QoE problems, and methods for
> improving (not specifically discussing the policies of sharing real-time
> traffic space), I would like to explain:
> Over an IP pipe only used for real-traffic (no TCP data traffic), it is
> sufficient that the pipe is wide enough for good QoS. That is often used
> implemented by separating IP pipes at a lower level using e.g. Ethernet
> VLAN, MPLS, Ethernet over ATM (std for ADSL modems). TURN servers can
> enforce real-traffic into such pipes and QoS is achieved. Let’s call this
> Level 2 QoS (Network level)
> Over an IP pipe shared between quality requiring real-time traffic and
> demanding data or streaming (usually TCP) traffic, we have the sharing
> between these two traffic classes to consider. The main method (and the
> mechanism making today’s real-time QoE as good as it often is) is that TCP
> endpoints back-off and share their bandwidth usage. Real-time traffic
> UDP transport do not back-off, the endpoints using UDP occupy the
> needed. When an IP pipe gets filled, it is all endpoint’s TCP bandwidth
> usage that is back-off and shared between them, leaving room for the UDP
> traffic. This is mechanism we experience everyday over the Internet, using
> our “Surf IP pipes”. Let’s call this Level 4 QoS (Transport level)
> However, this Level 4 QoS is based on that at congestion times (which
> every time we click – setting up a TCP flow and transferring some amount
> data as quick as possible) the router handling the most narrow part of the
> pipe (the congestion point) drop packets. It is this packet dropping that
> (i) signals to TCP endpoints to reduce their bandwidth (via TCP’s error
> correction/retransmission mechanism) and (ii) destroys the QoE of
> traffic. (Both TCP and UDP packets are dropped in this process that is
> triggered by flow intensive TCP traffic.)
> We need (i) but don’t want (ii) and to improve on this we can e.g. use
> diffserve, DSCP bits in IP packets to instruct routers to always forward
> real-time traffic before any unmarked TCP traffic (which usually fills
> of the pipe). Then QoS is then achieved for real-time traffic. This is
> 3 QoS (IP level). The method used is “traffic shaping”: backing off data
> traffic, leaving real-time traffic free passage without packet loss.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list