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

Hi Dan,

Would it be possible to have more info on this CISCO product?

Actually, nowadays satellite technology already implements multiplexing capabilities to better exploit the satellite capacity. In this respect it would be interesting to understand the interaction of the CISCO multiplexing-enabled router and the functions already available in satellite terminals.

Thanks in advance

Regards,

Tomaso

------------------------
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR)
German Aerospace Center
Institute of Communications and Navigation | Satellite Networks | Oberpfaffenhofen | 82234 Wessling | Germany
Tomaso de Cola, Ph.D.
Telefon +49 8153 28-2156 | Telefax  +49 8153 28-2844 | tomaso.decola@dlr.de<mailto:sandro.scalise@dlr.de>
http://www.dlr.de/kn/institut/abteilungen/san

From: tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dan Wing
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:14 PM
To: jsaldana@unizar.es
Cc: tcmtf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Answers to possible questions in the BOF

On Jun 26, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es<mailto:jsaldana@unizar.es>> wrote:

Question 4: Is TCM-TF interesting for the Industry? Should the IETF standardize this?

Answer:

1) TCM-TF intends to update RFC4170, which optimizes RTP VoIP traffic. So if RFC4170 was interesting, why not updating it?

2) TCM-TF can be useful in order to save bandwidth in many cases:

- Aggregation network of *network operators*: We are saving bandwidth by optimizing and putting together traffic flows. Is this interesting for a network operator? What about overprovisioning? The idea is that there are places and moments in which a number of flows based on small packets are in the same place and at the same moment. Then, TCM-TF can be applied in order to provide flexibility. We are not optimizing the overall Internet traffic, we are optimizing specific flows with very tight delay requirements, which network operators have to take care of in a special way.
www.huawei.com/ilink/en/download/HW_193034<http://www.huawei.com/ilink/en/download/HW_193034>

- *End to end* optimization: Nowadays, many appliances are used to connect remote offices of the same company (creating a VPN). So if a tunnel exists, why not optimizing this traffic when possible? We would save bandwidth in the access network, where it can be scarce.

- Wireless and satellite scenarios.

"Cisco adds IP multiplexing to mobile satellite package", April 2012, http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/040912-cisco-ip-multiplexing-258082.html

Any other thoughts? Any other scenarios in mind? Potential beneficiaries?

Some networks, today, use cRTP (RFC2508) on their access links.  This gives bandwidth savings on the access link, but consumes considerable CPU horsepower on the aggregation router (to perform cRTP), but provides no bandwidth savings across the network core.  If, instead, the bandwidth could be saved on the access link, across the core, and on the far-end access link -- all without the CPU impact on the aggregation router -- it is a considerable win.

-d

Jose

De: tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bounces@ietf.org>] En nombre de Jose Saldana
Enviado el: lunes, 24 de junio de 2013 13:00
Para: tcmtf@ietf.org<mailto: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

_______________________________________________
tcmtf mailing list
tcmtf@ietf.org<mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf