Return-Path: 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 C052D1A00F1; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:06:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, ONE_TIME=0.714, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, 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 lyGb5Xl0fDFG; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:06:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2E821A00EF; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:06:56 -0800 (PST) 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 s15C6rHi013847; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:06:54 +0100 From: "Jose Saldana" To: Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:06:59 +0100 Message-ID: <009801cf226a$c5aed1c0$510c7540$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0099_01CF2273.27744B30" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac8iaHBj1FpJQ/1NReqDF17hX0AThQ== Content-Language: es X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Cc: tsv-area@ietf.org Subject: [tcmtf] Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments: Problem 3: additional delays X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:06:59 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0099_01CF2273.27744B30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Problem: Are we adding latency and complexity to save relatively little bandwidth? Bob Briscoe: (.) "I am concerned about adding latency and complexity to save relatively little bandwidth - when there will be a need for checking the network path." Tim Chown: "bufferbloat - could be increasing buffers to group packets up." The answer is related to the idea of TCM-TF itself: it is summarized in n.4 of the charter draft: 4. New scenarios where bandwidth savings are desirable have been identified, in addition to those considered in RFC4170. In these scenarios, there are moments or places where network capacity gets scarce, so allocating more bandwidth is a possible solution, but it implies a recurring cost. However, the inclusion of a pair of boxes able to optimize the traffic when/where required is a one-time investment. In addition, the second draft is about additional delay limits. If you have some "delay budget" available, you can use it. R. Peon: "application can sometimes send multiple packets with the same message so that they have unique probability of loss (not correlated), this is an application choice that needs to be known by a tunnel." The idea is that a tunnel does not include a number of packets from the same flow, but from different ones. Jose ------=_NextPart_000_0099_01CF2273.27744B30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Probl= em:

=

Are = we adding latency and complexity to save relatively little = bandwidth?

Bob Briscoe: (…) =
“I am concerned about adding latency and complexity to save =
relatively little bandwidth - when there will be a need for checking the =
network path.”

Tim Chown: “bufferbloat - could be increasing =
buffers to group packets up.”

=

=

The = answer is related to the idea of TCM-TF itself: it is summarized in n.4 = of the charter draft:

=

4. = New scenarios where bandwidth savings are desirable have been = identified, in addition to those considered in RFC4170. In these = scenarios, there are moments or places where network capacity gets = scarce, so allocating more bandwidth is a possible solution, but it = implies a recurring cost. However, the inclusion of a pair of boxes able = to optimize the traffic when/where required is a one-time = investment.

=

In = addition, the second draft is about additional delay limits. If you have = some “delay budget” available, you can use = it.

=

R. Peon: =
“application can sometimes send multiple packets with the same =
message so that they have unique probability of loss (not correlated), =
this is an application choice that needs to be known by a =
tunnel.”

=

The = idea is that a tunnel does not include a number of packets from the same = flow, but from different ones.

=

Jose =

=

------=_NextPart_000_0099_01CF2273.27744B30--