Galène videoconferencing server discussion list archives
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean DuBois <sean@siobud.com>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
Cc: T H Panton <tim@pi.pe>, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>,
	galene@lists.galene.org
Subject: [Galene] Re: using up more ports in ipv6 for better congestion control
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:25:44 -0400
Message-ID: <20210716142544.brppkny2kzprgic5@Seans-MBP.columbus.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a6mnavkw.wl-jch@irif.fr>

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 03:36:31AM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> >> Tim, I'd be very grateful if you could explain what advantages TWCC has
> >> over REMB.  For now, I'm sticking with REMB.
> 
> > With TWCC the sender knows the metadata of lost packets. If you lose a packet
> > with REMB you don't know the send time or the size of the packet. That
> > seems like it could be useful information?
> 
> I understand that TWCC is more chatty, and sends more detailed information
> to the sender.  What I don't understand is why this information is useful:
> REMB performs the exact same computation as TWCC, but it does it on the
> receiver side, and only sends the result to the sender, thus avoiding the
> chattiness but yielding the exact same result.
> 
> What am I missing?  What exactly does TWCC buy you?
> 
> -- Juliusz

Receiver Side BWE can't know the size+send time of lost packets.

I am not aware of any other reasons though. In the GCC [0] paper it
looked like calculations were designed to happen on both ends. Maybe it
was more maintainable to have all the logic in one peer?

[0] https://www.aitrans.online/static/paper/Gcc-analysis.pdf

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-16 14:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-10 15:15 [Galene] " Dave Taht
2021-07-10 15:19 ` [Galene] " Dave Taht
2021-07-10 16:36 ` T H Panton
2021-07-10 16:48   ` Dave Taht
2021-07-11 11:19   ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-07-15 14:17     ` Sean DuBois
2021-07-16  1:36       ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-07-16 14:25         ` Sean DuBois [this message]
2021-07-15 16:26     ` T H Panton
2021-07-16  1:37       ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-07-16 14:46         ` T H Panton
2021-07-16 17:48           ` Juliusz Chroboczek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.galene.org/postorius/lists/galene.lists.galene.org/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210716142544.brppkny2kzprgic5@Seans-MBP.columbus.rr.com \
    --to=sean@siobud.com \
    --cc=dave.taht@gmail.com \
    --cc=galene@lists.galene.org \
    --cc=jch@irif.fr \
    --cc=tim@pi.pe \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Galène videoconferencing server discussion list archives

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://lists.galene.org/galene

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V1 galene galene/ https://lists.galene.org/galene \
		galene@lists.galene.org
	public-inbox-index galene

Example config snippet for mirrors.


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git