TFRC and RTP

Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> Fri, 10 September 2010 11:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D623A69BF; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.032
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.032 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.567, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uAq06SdVddZU; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB913A63EC; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b91ae000001aef-13-4c8a1a0cfa86
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 7D.F8.06895.C0A1A8C4; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:44:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0366.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.237]) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.125]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:44:12 +0200
From: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, iccrg <iccrg@cs.ucl.ac.uk>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:44:11 +0200
Subject: TFRC and RTP
Thread-Topic: TFRC and RTP
Thread-Index: ActQ3XwybF/OEtggTnWOz5V/Qr4SnQ==
Message-ID: <DBB1DC060375D147AC43F310AD987DCC12A7C55A53@ESESSCMS0366.eemea.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "dragana.damjanovic@uibk.ac.at" <dragana.damjanovic@uibk.ac.at>, "michawe@ifi.uio.no" <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, "steing@ifi.uio.no" <steing@ifi.uio.no>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:43:48 -0000

Hi

I am in the process where I try to understand TFRC (and the modifications like TFRC-SP and MulTFRC) better and in particular how they can be used with RTP.
RTP is assumed to use RTCP as feedback protocol. The rate of the RTCP feedback is given by the alloacted RTCP bandwidth, I would expect that in the majority of cases the time between RTCP is considerably longer than RTT.

This gives as I see it two potential problems
+ Estimation of RTT, RTT will be subsampled.
+ Loss events. The traditional RTCP report blocks does not make it possible to determine this reliably. The ECN for RTP draft (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-avt-ecn-for-rtp-02.txt) specifies a NACK feedback packet that can be transitted in early or immediate mode. This should make it possible to determine the loss events but the accuracy will then depend on the estimate of RTT.

Does anybody have an idea about how the limitations above (esp the subsampled RTT) will affect TFRC ?

Regards
/Ingemar

=================================
INGEMAR JOHANSSON  M.Sc. 
Senior Research Engineer 

Ericsson AB
Multimedia Technologies
Labratoriegränd 11
971 28, Luleå, Sweden
Phone +46-1071 43042
SMS/MMS +46-73 078 3289
ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com
www.ericsson.com 
Visit http://labs.ericsson.com !
=================================