Re: [tcmtf] BoF feedback

Muthu, Luigi,

Perhaps you are right. The inclusion of the TCP branch of the protocol
raised many objections. But perhaps if we remove that branch (or leave it
for further study), we can carry on with RTP/UDP/IP and UDP/IP flows. In
fact, RTP/UDP/IP is already a standard (RFC4170, 2005) and nobody objected.
At least we should replace ECRTP with ROHC in RFC4170.

Another option would be to create a specific document about the things to
take into account when multiplexing TCP flows. Or perhaps this could be
included in the "TCM-TF recommendations" draft.

Thanks,

Jose

-----Mensaje original-----
De: tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre de
Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
Enviado el: viernes, 02 de agosto de 2013 22:25
Para: Luigi Iannone; tcmtf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] BoF feedback

TCMTF has clear and demonstrated benefits for VoIP and online gaming.
CRTP/ECRTP has already enjoyed some success in reducing VoIP bandwidth over
point-to-point WAN links, especially in those regions where access bandwidth
is considerably expensive. TCMFT is a natural extension that encompasses
better compression and tunneling technologies to achieve similar goals. 

The concerns raised during the BoF seemed in relation to generalizing it for
other kinds of traffic and TCP in particular. This generalization though
important (especially in the context of Internet of Things as echoed by
Michael Ramalho during the BoF) could probably be deferred for future work
(TCMTF2.0?) and the scope limited to VoIP and online gaming to begin with,
IMO. As we work through the limited scope, how (and how not) to apply it for
other kinds of traffic should become more clear, I think.

Muthu

|-----Original Message-----
|From: tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
|Of Luigi Iannone
|Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 4:05 PM
|To: tcmtf@ietf.org
|Subject: [tcmtf] BoF feedback
|
|Hi,
|
|I was thinking a little bit about the turn the BoF took yesterday, going a
bit off topic IMHO.
|
|At a certain point people were going to the mic to explain yet another 
|scenario where TCMTF would not work or is not useful.
|
|It is obvious to me that such scenarios exist, but  the goal of TCMTF 
|is not to provide something that will be applied to all packets under a
certain size.
|
|It is also obvious to me that scenarios where TCMTF is beneficial exist 
|as well. Goal of TCMTF should be to provide the right mechanism for those
scenarios.
|
|A key point to discuss in TCMTF is how we identify and select the flow 
|we want to be multiplexed on a single compressed tunnel.
|
|All of this to say that we should not focus or scenarios where TCMTF 
|doesn't help but rather to answer the following question:
|
|Are there scenarios and use cases where TCMTF provides benefits?
|
|The answer IMHO is YES so some work should be done.
|
|Just let me add that,  before thinking how to encapsulate we should 
|answer: How do we select the flows we want to encamp?
|
|So that we are sure that we do not touch traffic that will suffer because
of TCMTF.
|
|Just my thoughts after the BoF.
|
|ciao
|
|Luigi
|
|
|_______________________________________________
|tcmtf mailing list
|tcmtf@ietf.org
|https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
_______________________________________________
tcmtf mailing list
tcmtf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf