Re: [P2PSIP] Solution space for fragmentation, congestion control and reliability

["Brian Rosen" <br at brianrosen.net>]

Is that a fatal flaw, or merely an expression of concern, needing some text?

Brian



From: p2psip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:p2psip-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Henning Schulzrinne
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:51 PM
To: Saverio Mascolo
Cc: p2psip at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Solution space for fragmentation, congestion control
and reliability

I will note that TFRC was designed for long-lived streams (e.g., media
streams), which probably differs a bit from our typical application in
P2PSIP, where somewhat random pairs of nodes exchange data objects of a few
dozen to a few hundred packets. For example, establishing a "fair" rate is
not trivial under those conditions, and has high error margins.

Henning

On Apr 6, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Saverio Mascolo wrote:


hi lars,
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Lars Eggert <lars.eggert at nokia.com> wrote:
Hi,


  
I'd strongly urge you to use TFRC rather than rolling your own scheme. Don't
underestimate the validation effort that is required to ensure that a
congestion control scheme is safe to deploy. This has all been done for
TFRC, and it must be done for any new scheme.

Lars

is anyone  aware of applications using TFRC?

s 

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
P2PSIP at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip