IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Mon, 10 February 2014 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
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 B1BB71A0879 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:37:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable
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 DPDaJq2VLv7Y for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:37:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f173.google.com (mail-we0-f173.google.com [74.125.82.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41081A0876 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:37:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id x55so4412292wes.32 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:37:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=OgzXHwSntqybhE9dlA73GSwrs5ovFhtg8nGAtJeSMZU=; b=WHdvS942wrOrHAryr9OZxCmSF5k0kJ7jpvR8SsOzKLAOOZyXqI8LqYeViYDKmBWftu nQHG1gKRfoI97waArLreV/ohKMm8abDyv+yXCBCqNe7f2gpCq/gWHLh0/UJ9ywKsD3tV LorIdBvqFe0CjJYIOMR2eRIX+uNc2lnp456zeut4Ofb2qmMLr1GllmKIg6klXxhTLJxX kGfOnS1E5KtIoiuSUHXWp4stZ3ON03d3guSmWjwP4AJ6jXs/EPumrKNowCq5Mw4RoEZo wFaowGc4qOpQJAw1UH2NsX+D5jiJ8tlX/jOQFJaUSH4y3cN/iaoBNYPGiYqziuzcqRPi dZ+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlU3tdjv75FID4uynQXIng0AD6WI+OXQxk5d1Ki7ryQk5HJ2+3YJQyBJB8hFj/c92tEovT0
X-Received: by 10.194.134.132 with SMTP id pk4mr118335wjb.82.1392046654985; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:37:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:2454:6f65:480c:f1d1? ([2001:660:330f:a4:2454:6f65:480c:f1d1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p1sm37518390wie.1.2014.02.10.07.37.33 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:37:33 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <006f01cf23e0$c926bf80$5b743e80$@unizar.es>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:37:45 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6692A7F3-1B2C-488C-93C4-5C4BE3F2E7C4@gigix.net>
References: <007601cf231c$f7c78be0$e756a3a0$@unizar.es> <52F412AF.5030203@isi.edu> <006f01cf23e0$c926bf80$5b743e80$@unizar.es>
To: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
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: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:37:41 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email