Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion control (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-congestion-00.txt)
Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 16 September 2011 13:24 UTC
Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34F821F8C20 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 06:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.503
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j26kW1eRnzQb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 06:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9100A21F8C1E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 06:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-9c-4e734e8e03b5
Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 1C.B0.20773.E8E437E4; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:26:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:26:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4E734E89.5010105@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:26:33 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
References: <4E649FBD.1090001@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <4E649FBD.1090001@alvestrand.no>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion control (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-congestion-00.txt)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:24:26 -0000
Hi, As an Individual I do have a few comments and question on this document and its algorithm. 1. Section 3: As delay based congestion control has been tried a number of times and meet with less than stellar success I wonder if you have any understanding of how this relates to the issues previously encountered: - Stability (especially on short RTTs) - How it competes with TCP flows, which was a real issues for TCP Vegas but may be less of an issue here. 2. Section 3, I don't see any discussion of the startup issue. Is my assumption correct, that you will simply start at some rate and then adapt from that? 3. Section 3, I guess this mechanism would get significant issues with any sender side transmission filtering. Burst transmitting I-frames over a network, especially for high resolution video can easily result in packet loss in switch fabrics if there is any cross traffic in the switch fabric. Thus having a bit of send filtering for frame transmission is a good idea. Are I understanding it correctly that this could result in over-use indication if I has such mechanism which filters a packet to a slower transmission rate than what a single or small burst can achieve over the same path? 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. 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. 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. I think the timeout should be based on the RTT and possible reporting rate. But there clearly need to be some upper limit, either explicitly or mandating RTCP bandwidth rates. 5. Section 4: "We motivate the packet loss thresholds by noting that if we have small amount of packet losses due to over-use, that amount will soon increase if we don't adjust our bit rate. Therefore we will soon enough reach above the 10 % threshold and adjust As(i). However if the packet loss rate does not increase, the losses are probably not related to self-induced channel over-use and therefore we should not react on them." I am personally worried that a packet loss threshold of 10% is so high that it might push a lot of other traffic out of the way. Thus being quite aggressive towards other flows. TCP has this relation between the average packet loss rate and the highest sustainable rate which can be interpreted as TCP gets more sensitive to loss the higher the average data rate becomes. Thus in certain situation the sender side algorithm part will be extremely aggressive in pushing TCP out of the way. The receiver part may compensate for this pretty well in a number of situations. But, I do wonder why for example the A(i) isn't bounded to be between TFRC's rate and some multiple of TFRC rate, not unbounded by other than the receiver side algorithm. I do understand this document is to start a discussion. But I think we need to be sensitive to that it is difficult to get even something that is self-fair over the wide range of conditions the Internet has to provide. Thus I would appreciate what issues with for example TFRC that you attempt to fix with the various new components you add. Cheers Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion contr… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Stefan Holmer
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Henrik Lundin
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Varun Singh
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Henrik Lundin
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Henrik Lundin
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Varun Singh
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Soo-Hyun Choi
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Henrik Lundin
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Soo-Hyun Choi
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Soo-Hyun Choi
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Soo-Hyun Choi
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Jim Gettys
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Henrik Lundin
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Henrik Lundin
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Stefan Holmer
- Re: [rtcweb] An input for discussing congestion c… Soo-Hyun Choi