Re: [tcmtf] Answers to possible questions in the BOF

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Wed, 26 June 2013 10:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06EBE11E81B0 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 03:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 VMOzEZFZBqaT for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 03:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB6B11E81AF for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 03:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id r5QAnEPc020711 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:49:19 +0200
From: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: tcmtf@ietf.org
References: <007e01ce70c9$fe1a0aa0$fa4e1fe0$@unizar.es>
In-Reply-To: <007e01ce70c9$fe1a0aa0$fa4e1fe0$@unizar.es>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:49:17 +0200
Organization: Universidad de Zaragoza
Message-ID: <009901ce725a$d1623360$74269a20$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009A_01CE726B.94EB9FA0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHxl5HfJe4XxEPJrqhURPk2/vEH5pkBfNvw
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Answers to possible questions in the BOF
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jsaldana@unizar.es
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <tcmtf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf>
List-Post: <mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:49:28 -0000

Question 4: Is TCM-TF interesting for the Industry? Should the IETF
standardize this?

 

Answer:

 

1) TCM-TF intends to update RFC4170, which optimizes RTP VoIP traffic. So if
RFC4170 was interesting, why not updating it?

 

2) TCM-TF can be useful in order to save bandwidth in many cases:

 

- Aggregation network of *network operators*: We are saving bandwidth by
optimizing and putting together traffic flows. Is this interesting for a
network operator? What about overprovisioning? The idea is that there are
places and moments in which a number of flows based on small packets are in
the same place and at the same moment. Then, TCM-TF can be applied in order
to provide flexibility. We are not optimizing the overall Internet traffic,
we are optimizing specific flows with very tight delay requirements, which
network operators have to take care of in a special way.

www.huawei.com/ilink/en/download/HW_193034

 

- *End to end* optimization: Nowadays, many appliances are used to connect
remote offices of the same company (creating a VPN). So if a tunnel exists,
why not optimizing this traffic when possible? We would save bandwidth in
the access network, where it can be scarce.

 

- Wireless and satellite scenarios.

 

 

Any other thoughts? Any other scenarios in mind? Potential beneficiaries? 

 

 

Jose

 

De: tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre de Jose
Saldana
Enviado el: lunes, 24 de junio de 2013 13:00
Para: tcmtf@ietf.org
Asunto: [tcmtf] Answers to possible questions in the BOF

 

I would like to start a thread about possible questions people may ask in
the BOF. Obviously, we also need answers, so we should cooperate.

 

This is different from the "questions to ask in the BOF". This will be
discussed separately.

 

Thanks!

 

Jose