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

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Tue, 18 February 2014 08:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
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 776F41A02FF; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:45:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 H3gA3BzVynNC; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:45:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08DD1A009E; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:45:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id s1I8jABn019449; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:45:10 +0100
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: "'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>
In-Reply-To: <6692A7F3-1B2C-488C-93C4-5C4BE3F2E7C4@gigix.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:45:20 +0100
Message-ID: <010301cf2c85$c1d97440$458c5cc0$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHPuVkuoGxnd6nNfAS2ET+wNDYJAwLz5ck/AR31gr8B4B6m1JqKB91A
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcmtf/XtS94h1ByDAercdHp18O_9uNfe0
Cc: tcmtf@ietf.org, tsv-area@ietf.org, 'Joe Touch' <touch@isi.edu>
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 08:45:22 -0000

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.

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/

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
>