Re: [dccp] Would a DCCP flow need to send 2x its preferred rate?

[Qiaobing Xie <Qiaobing.Xie@motorola.com>]

Eddie Kohler wrote:

> > But, if people suddenly realize that turning off their encoder silence
> > detection immediately gives them better voice quality and start to do so in a
> > large scale, what good it would do to the network? Would IAB have the power to
> > tell people not to do so?
>
> TCP-friendliness without silence suppression is probably better for the
> best-effort Internet than non-TCP-friendliness with silence suppression.
>

Eddie,

I wish I could be as optimistic as you. I wonder if anyone on the list has some
numbers that can show what percentage of additional media data will be injected into
the network if codecs would stop doing silence detection (motion detection for
video).

Fundamentally, I am concerned that this DCCP "app-who-sends-more-will-get-rewarded"
feature will be taken advantage of in the wrong way (the draft that starts this
discussion is the first attempt for this, but it won't be the last).

If this behavior of "sending filler data when no real data to send" becomes a
recommended practice for media-over-DCCP (as you and Tom seem to suggest), what
would stop the same recommendation be made for app over TCP? For an app over a long
lived TCP connection, the sender can also benefit from sending "filler data" to keep
the pipe from collapsing, so as to avoid the penalty of going through another slow
start when it has real data to send next time. But I think this is hardly something
that should be recommended for TCP based apps. Why should it be more acceptable for
DCCP then?

regards,
-Qiaobing


>
> Eddie


_______________________________________________
dccp IETF mailing list: dccp@ietf.org
list info:  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dccp
wg charter: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dccp-charter.html