1 / 9

TFRC for Voice: the VoIP Variant

TFRC for Voice: the VoIP Variant. Sally Floyd, Eddie Kohler. November 2005 draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-voip-02.txt Slides: http://www.icir.org/floyd/talks.html Graphics: http://www.icir.org/floyd/papers/voipimages.pdf. VoIP: fairness in Bps.

keegan
Download Presentation

TFRC for Voice: the VoIP Variant

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TFRC for Voice: the VoIP Variant Sally Floyd, Eddie Kohler. November 2005 draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-voip-02.txt Slides: http://www.icir.org/floyd/talks.html Graphics: http://www.icir.org/floyd/papers/voipimages.pdf

  2. VoIP: fairness in Bps. • In the TCP throughput equation, use the measured loss event rate and a packet size of 1460 bytes. • Reduce the allowed transmit rate to account for the fraction of the VoIP bandwidth that would be used by 40-byte headers: • Enforce a Min Interval between packets of 10 ms. • For short loss intervals (at most two RTTs), count the actual packet loss rate (but don’t increase the number of loss intervals).

  3. Report from the last IETF: Issues remaining • The problem: • VoIP TFRC, with small packets, can see different packet drops that it would have with larger packets. When is this a problem? • For simulations with configured byte drop rates (where small packets are less likely to be dropped than large packets): • When compared with 1460-byte TCP,even standard TFRC with small packets can get much more than its share of the bandwidth in times of high congestion.

  4. The current status for TFRC using small packets: • Configured *packet* drop rates: • Standard TFRC with small packets doesn’t do well; • VoIP TFRC with small packets achieves reasonable fairness with large-packet TCP. • Configured *byte* drop rates: • With byte drop rates, TCP sometimes does better with smaller packets. • Standard TFRC with small packets achieves reasonable fairness with TCP using the optimal packet size for that level of congestion. • VoIP TFRC with small packets achieves more bandwidth than TCP using optimal packet sizes.

  5. Configured *packet* drop rates, with 200-byte TFRC segments, 1460-byte TCP segments:

  6. Configured *byte* drop rates, with 14-byte TFRC segments, 1460-byte TCP segments:

  7. Configured *byte* drop rates, with 14-byte TFRC segments, different TCP segment sizes:

  8. Question from last time: • Is it ok to have congestion control for small-packet flows that lets small-packet flows receive more bandwidth than large-packet TCP flows in environments where small packets are less likely to be dropped than large ones? • Answer: I think so, as an Experimental CCID. It seems that for many paths in the Internet, small packets don’t receive favorable treatment.

  9. Drop rates with different packet sizes: Downloads from web servers, from Alberto Medina. Annotation: total # of drops / total # of packets

More Related