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

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Tue, 25 June 2013 08:26 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 B6C6821F91A5 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 01:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, 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 NEiQyeIK0pjq for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 01:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huecha.unizar.es (huecha.unizar.es [155.210.1.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB74021F8D10 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 01:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) by huecha.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id r5P8Qevv022912 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:26:45 +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: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:26:42 +0200
Organization: Universidad de Zaragoza
Message-ID: <003a01ce717d$bc286e20$34794a60$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003B_01CE718E.7FB13E20"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHxl5HfJe4XxEPJrqhURPk2/vEH5pj/xyyg
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:26:59 -0000

Question 3: You are talking about real-time services (VoIP, online games,
remote desktop). *Why adding a new (multiplexing) delay?* Would it harm the
user's experience with the service?

 

Answer

 

1) We have had that question in mind from the very beginning. We want to
save bandwidth and pps, but always preserving subjective quality. In fact, a
specific draft has been written including a set of recommendations of the
maximum delays that can be tolerated by users of different services. The
draft includes references to studies where subjective quality has been
evaluated with real people.

 

 

2) In addition, our idea is that TCM-TF can be something to be used
dynamically when required. Some examples:

 

- I am in the rush hour and I notice a lot of traffic in my network. In
order to avoid the collapse, I optimize traffic. I add a small delay, but
the bandwidth savings can make it possible that the service still works.

 

- I am an online games provider and I am releasing a new title. The first
days, a lot of people will want to play. So, how can I dimension my network?
Should I dimension it for the worst case?

 

TCM-TF provides flexibility: there is a tradeoff: a small additional delay
as the price for maintaining the service. It should be taken into account
that for certain services the bandwidth savings are 50 or even 60%.

 

 

3) If I have a high number of flows, I can achieve significant bandwidth
savings while adding small delays. Some examples:

- 10 VoIP flows G729 can be optimized including one packet from each flow
(average additional delay 10ms) and 50% of bandwidth can be saved

- if I have 100 flows of a TCP-based online game, I can achieve 45%
bandwidth saving with a multiplexing period of 30 ms (average additional
delay 15ms)

 

 

4) TCM-TF is not only for real-time services. Other small-packet services
can be optimized, and in this case the additional delay would not be
significant.

 

 

Any other thoughts?

 

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