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

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> Wed, 30 April 2014 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB5B1A0997 for <>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.152
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NEJGQI1ajOib for <>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30EA81A08B5 for <>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=750; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398892898; x=1400102498; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=SUJBm4u8Da7sbd0Gu4k6+FgaMbnd1+2FzzZwqkYzRLo=; b=bW6G0Ex7GfdG10FT+8CukO74z/9lhsS+Hp9NMfgbSI+ILvIozi5saK9t SKehi6m6Mi+evR2NylPdjcq6dpfZRTeq7CxjNwA/OBhA3mnO65HXFS1KE CkPp+ar+65UnNtRx/szk3B62Xa1fnkqFI0fSTupukk0eVzp8RObB0ynEG M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai8FAB5oYVOtJA2M/2dsb2JhbABZgwaBJsRMgSEWdIIlAQEBAwF5BQsCAQhGMiUCBA4FiDkIygcXjh4zB4MkgRUBA5knkmuBcoE/gis
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,960,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="321519635"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 30 Apr 2014 21:21:36 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3ULLafP017199 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:21:36 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:21:36 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
To: Roman Shpount <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Pictures of congestion control on the Internet - which is more realistic?
Thread-Index: AQHPZLoqT0r3kE244UWS8vLGoCPh4w==
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:21:35 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
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, 30 Apr 2014 21:21:45 -0000

On Apr 23, 2014, at 9:02 AM, Roman Shpount <> wrote:

> 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.

Well … I sort of agree with you and Wenger and sort of don’t. They have an upper layer congestion control. Basically when the congestion gets bad, the humans on both ends hang up the call and go call each other on their cell phones. 

But the bottom line of all this is we all wish we had better congestion control for interactive voice and video and RMCAT is working on that and it is hard and going to take awhile to figure out and probably longer to deploy.