Re: [tcmtf] Using the concept of "latency budget" for TCM-TF

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 18 February 2014 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D03181A0438; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:21:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lu7GDl0H3iaR; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:21:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B741A0408; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:21:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s1IIKoeO019608 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:20:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5303A483.3060406@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:20:51 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>, "'Luigi Iannone'" <ggx@gigix.net>
References: <007601cf231c$f7c78be0$e756a3a0$@unizar.es> <52F412AF.5030203@isi.edu> <006f01cf23e0$c926bf80$5b743e80$@unizar.es> <6692A7F3-1B2C-488C-93C4-5C4BE3F2E7C4@gigix.net> <010301cf2c85$c1d97440$458c5cc0$@unizar.es>
In-Reply-To: <010301cf2c85$c1d97440$458c5cc0$@unizar.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcmtf/HsntNawZ4c0fG5PBnVrti_QdVs0
Cc: tcmtf@ietf.org, tsv-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Using the concept of "latency budget" for TCM-TF
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:21:54 -0000

On 2/18/2014 12:45 AM, Jose Saldana wrote:
> Sure.
>
> We have studied the effect of the added delay (and jitter) on different
> services: VoIP, games. We have even used subjective quality estimators in
> order to see the degradation as a function of the period.

There's several decades of work - much of this ongoing - studying this 
effect. You might look into it and cite some of the existing understanding.

> We can include some ideas in the second draft (Delay Limits and Multiplexing
> Policies to be employed with Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows,
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf/


AFAICT, this implies you assume that the HCI latency budget is yours to 
consume; you need to account for the rest of the system.

Joe

>
> Thanks,
>
> Jose
> PS:
> A paper about the effect on VoIP:
>
> Jose Saldana, Julian Fernandez-Navajas, Jose Ruiz-Mas, Jenifer Murillo,
> Eduardo Viruete, Jose I. Aznar, "Evaluating the Influence of Multiplexing
> Schemes and Buffer Implementation on Perceived VoIP Conversation Quality,"
> Computer Networks (Elsevier), Volume 56, Issue 7, Pages 1893-1919, May 2012.
> doi 10.1016/j.comnet.2012.02.004
>
>
> Another one about the effect on a game:
>
> Jose Saldana, Julian Fernandez-Navajas, Jose Ruiz-Mas, Eduardo Viruete
> Navarro, Luis Casadesus, "Online FPS Games: Effect of Router Buffer and
> Multiplexing Techniques on Subjective Quality Estimators," Multimedia Tools
> and Applications, Springer. doi 10.1007/s11042-012-1309-4
>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: Luigi Iannone [mailto:ggx@gigix.net]
>> Enviado el: lunes, 10 de febrero de 2014 16:38
>> Para: Jose Saldana
>> CC: Joe Touch; tcmtf@ietf.org; tsv-area@ietf.org
>> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Using the concept of "latency budget" for TCM-TF
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 7 Feb. 2014, at 09:44 , Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>; wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> The only question that is different in TCM-TF is that we have to
>>> multiplex packets, so for certain services we must define a
>>> "multiplexing period" (the added delay is half the period in average).
>>> In this case, we can control this portion of the added delay. We can
>>> tune the period if the latency gets modified.
>>>
>>
>> Will this be documented in the documents produced by the WG?
>>
>> I mean, it would be useful to have something that describes performances
>> with different multiplexing period and may be a recommended setup
>> depending of the traffic type (e.g. gaming vs voip).
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> L.
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is why I thought that was interesting here: we can control and
>>> tune a part of the latency in this case.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Jose
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tcmtf mailing list
>>> tcmtf@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>>
>