IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [vwrap] Technical basis for VW client in a web browser?

"Hurliman, John" <john.hurliman@intel.com> Mon, 20 December 2010 03:07 UTC

Return-Path: <john.hurliman@intel.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B8E3A69B9 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:07:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 EILnju6+ZjwE for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:07:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ABE73A69AA for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:07:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2010 19:09:06 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,199,1291622400"; d="scan'208";a="638159391"
Received: from rrsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.31.0.57]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2010 19:09:06 -0800
Received: from rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.31.0.39]) by rrsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.31.0.57]) with mapi; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:09:05 -0700
From: "Hurliman, John" <john.hurliman@intel.com>
To: Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:09:05 -0700
Thread-Topic: [vwrap] Technical basis for VW client in a web browser?
Thread-Index: Acuf80KgR4MTf+pbQeWYXrPEn12Eog==
Message-ID: <788D9C2E-595D-49B6-B83F-A6C18627A90D@intel.com>
References: <AANLkTintjQdAS=EWfiRu3oWenB42LKsNzJPDJ+5ofBRO@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinhWObg6Te2VtGYKXsxBG5=gVDS5szmjtLeOgnm@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikYn-iA7osXT_oW8rL61GhK57pp7uJVmTSGVvj7@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikFWUxQyT9aNFBk7-Fdb5bNdFT9Bj-dehqVP0WN@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20101219141829.0a381da8@resistor.net> <AANLkTik-1m=4OOeQN=D3w2t-G-f6DNKwDOmhT5_bNkmb@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinMstkDv5iq6usxbe1djK7GkPrOAjpKYANyMxcy@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinMstkDv5iq6usxbe1djK7GkPrOAjpKYANyMxcy@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "vwrap@ietf.org" <vwrap@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Technical basis for VW client in a web browser?
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:07:16 -0000

Agreed 100%

John

On Dec 19, 2010, at 3:26 PM, "Meadhbh Hamrick" <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com<mailto:ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>> wrote:


do we really know that UDP is what we want, even for low latency? if you're multiplexing messages over a websocket connection, it's highly likely it'll be an existing connection (i.e.- it's likely one tcp/ip connection will carry several multiplexed websockets messages.)

in my tests, UDP doesn't do much better than TCP if you're near the network rate as it seems a lot of routers tend to dump UDP packets first.

most modern OSes now have api calls to let you disable TCP slow-start.

i guess what i'm saying is it might be a good idea to define messages in a way so they're transport agnostic. that and I would wager that any latency improvements from UDP are dwarfed by latency introduced by application layer mechanisms to replace TCP's flow control & resend semantics.

just my $0.02.

On Dec 19, 2010 2:34 PM, "SM" <<mailto:sm@resistor.net>sm@resistor.net<mailto:sm@resistor.net>> wrote:

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email