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

Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 19 September 2011 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <vsingh.ietf@gmail.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 B9E3021F8B34 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.157
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.157 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.443, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 77-7PMGA6fsP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C7721F8B28 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxd18 with SMTP id 18so3978590fxd.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=references:from:in-reply-to:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=otmg+SvWf77GF2eUd0+Ta6DbFxjY3hVrLsuGTxECtdE=; b=EPuEz+u2KfB+5KQruAaTo5j3bf6wxeyY8p9fQ+ntiTjWRCWmwSn5+j80vpj99h9EVk fS+O9tDOF852dVBrvTozqtb9Vk03v0IyRdtoB9Ph/LhhK81jbJ3OKLq22hupQXyPP4R8 iMkG2B0p5bEt3asnO9wa+nehgtV52SKuJNYf8=
Received: by 10.223.10.84 with SMTP id o20mr1048763fao.25.1316419694870; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
References: <4E649FBD.1090001@alvestrand.no> <4E734E89.5010105@ericsson.com> <4E766C4C.2020201@jesup.org> <CAEdus3LcjV9x+gLdZm5vwKhh-ge6xzfWSEB_NxcHe1Gz_5DZ8g@mail.gmail.com> <4E76F544.1040108@jesup.org> <CAOhzyfnGzQ36H+0fzGVNpnpDrapNgMCC4Dr1LO_sr-vDUJsi4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOhzyfnGzQ36H+0fzGVNpnpDrapNgMCC4Dr1LO_sr-vDUJsi4A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:08:09 +0300
Message-ID: <-2862138070495616930@unknownmsgid>
To: Henrik Lundin <hlundin@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174795c649bfa704ad46d86b
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "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: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:05:54 -0000

I'd be interested in this as well.

Regards,
Varun

----
http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun

On 19.9.2011, at 11.04, Henrik Lundin <hlundin@google.com> wrote:

Add me to the bof members list.

/Henrik L


On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>wrote;wrote:

>  Open question to the list: should the congestion-control-geeks discuss
> here on the
> list the nitty-gritty details required to build the requirements and
> especially to design
> and debate a possible proposed "baseline" congestion-control algorithm?
>
> We can certainly do that detailed discussion by email and come back with a
> draft;  I had been planning to do it by email, but recent discussion on
> rtcweb
> made me think I should ask for opinions on this.  Given the structure, if
> there's
> any significant support for "on-the-list" I'll do that.  Realize though
> that they may
> get pretty long and detailed without really touching on the larger issues
> being
> discussed here.
>
> Right now the bof members to discuss this and propose a draft would be
> myself,
> Harald, Justin,  Stefan Holmer and Magnus.
>
>
> On 9/19/2011 3:06 AM, Stefan Holmer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>wrote;wrote:
>
>> On 9/16/2011 9:26 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>
>>> 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:
>>>
>>  Do you have any pointers to these earlier attempts?  My separate
>> experience
>> with this class has been extremely successful, though perhaps with a set
>> of
>> real-world use-cases that don't cover the situations you're referring to.
>> My understanding is that Radvision's NetSense is very similar from their
>> description of it.
>>
>>
>  I'm interested in any references you may have as well.
>
>
>
> I doubt you'll find many/any, as the first published discussion I saw of
> delay-sensing
> congestion control for RTP data was Radvision's posts about Netsense last
> year
> and in their Android webcasts; and  that was pretty detail-free until their
> recent
> blog posts.  There's plenty of un-published experience with them at various
> companies
> I believe....  Not just Google and Radvision.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>  - 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.
>>>
>>  Perhaps Google can comment here about what tests they've done.  If
>> anything,
>> this class of algorithm when faced with aggressive TCP flows will
>> eventually
>> have problems, because TCP will tend to fill up the buffers at the
>> bottleneck.
>> Since this algorithm senses buffers starting to fill up, it will tend to
>> back
>> off before TCP is likely to see a loss event.  Now, it's more complex than
>> that of course, and multiple flows make it more complex still.  It's also
>> sensitive to the adaptation rate of this algorithm and speed of backoff.
>> If I remember, TFRC tends to back off more slowly than TCP but also
>> increase
>> more slowly; I suspect Google's algorithm is similar.
>>
>
>  As you're saying, it will always be hard for delay based congestion
> control algorithms to compete with a packet loss based algorithm. The delay
> based algorithm will detect over-use much earlier than the packet loss based
> one, and that's basically what we've seen in the tests we've been running as
> well. I do think we would benefit from more tests in this area. For
> instance, we might want to go with an additive increase approach rather than
> the current one which is multiplicative, this would likely help improve the
> algorithms self fairness as well.
>
>
> Probably; additive increase is probably better, or possible using a
> fraction-of-
> predicted-bandwidth increase.  If you use additive increase, it should
> probably be
> partly proportional to the maximum "good" bandwidth seen during the
> connection.
> This provides some needed scaling of the ramp-up rate to the absolute
> magnitude
> of bandwidth available.
>
>
> --
> Randell Jesuprandell-ietf@jesup.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>


-- 
Henrik Lundin | WebRTC Software Eng | hlundin@google.com | +46 70 646 13 41


_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb