Re: Teleconf [Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73]

[Marc Manthey <marc at let.de>]

Am 24.07.2008 um 23:13 schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
>  it's the extreme difficulty of running an effective remote meeting  
> with
> more than a very small number (4 or 5) of participating sites. So  
> for a design team meeting it's fine, but for a WG meeting I think  
> you'd be quite disappointed.

thanks for your clarification brian,
i will see if i can get some more information from the developers  
regarding this issue.

Recently i found 2 other  interesting projects :

xcast

> About number of participants, logical limit is 126. It's because of
> number of IPv6 address emmbed in one routing option header of IPv6
> with other info. But when we cannot emmbed 126 when using ordinal
> Ethernet, 1500 MTU. With 1024 octet payload with RTP/UDP header, we
> can specify 14 participants in one IPv6 datagram with 1500 octet Ether
> datagram. You can increase participants by reducing payload size.
>
> We did video meetings with participants upto 16 approximately.


http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ooms-xcast-basic-spec-12.txt

http://www.xcast.jp/index.php/Main_Page

and telepathy , whitch is in a early  alpha phase

http://telepathy.fFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Thu Jul 24 15:55:16 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-web-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-web-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A723A68C2;
	Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0433A685A
	for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.352
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 ONmxhFsH3CDB for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
	Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay2.mail.vrmd.de (relay2.mail.vrmd.de [81.28.224.28])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08153A68C2
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [87.79.236.249] (helo=[192.168.1.102])
	by relay2.mail.vrmd.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <marc at let.de>) id 1KM9iG-0004NB-Ug
	for ietf at ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:55:09 +0200
Message-Id: <FE31E9F3-EB3D-4CFE-AF56-ABB8A2705166 at let.de>
From: Marc Manthey <marc at let.de>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf at ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <4888F077.7020609 at gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924)
Subject: Re: Teleconf [Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday
	for IETF 73]
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:55:08 +0200
References: <377471DF-CE6D-4D45-A09D-E5BE780FEAE6 at cisco.com>	<C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC07302FE1 at E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>	<20080724115944.08D6E3A688C at core3.amsl.com>	<618BA85D-D7AD-4B59-8395-6FA07D1AC3BB at let.de>	<468BB465-FACA-491B-BFF2-BCEF920924C9 at multicasttech.com>
	<69FC9763-A06A-4C89-A59D-A4C6F45D5650 at let.de>
	<4888F077.7020609 at gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924)
X-Relay-User: marc at let.de
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1921589923=="
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

Am 24.07.2008 um 23:13 schrieb Brian E Carpenter:

 it's the extreme difficulty of running an effective remote meeting with
more than a very small number (4 or 5) of participating sites. So for a design team meeting it's fine, but for a WG meeting I think you'd be quite disappointed.

thanks for your clarification brian,

i will see if i can get some more information from the developers regarding this issue.

Recently i found 2 other  interesting projects :

xcast 

About number of participants, logical limit is 126. It's because of
number of IPv6 address emmbed in one routing option header of IPv6
with other info. But when we cannot emmbed 126 when using ordinal
Ethernet, 1500 MTU. With 1024 octet payload with RTP/UDP header, we
can specify 14 participants in one IPv6 datagram with 1500 octet Ether
datagram. You can increase participants by reducing payload size.

We did video meetings with participants upto 16 approximately.

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ooms-xcast-basic-spec-12.txt

http://www.xcast.jp/index.php/Main_Page

and telepathy , whitch is in a early  alpha phase

http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/wiki/Streamed%20Media

  Brian

regards

Marc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf