From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mail.toke.dk; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=irif.fr (client-ip=2001:660:3301:8000::1:2; helo=korolev.univ-paris7.fr; envelope-from=jch@irif.fr; receiver=) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) by mail.toke.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F5B2863ED9 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 03:36:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 16G1aWPG029148; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 03:36:32 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9137C2A73; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 03:36:32 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id XjlPS2EaHAOE; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 03:36:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56B0DC2A71; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 03:36:31 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 03:36:31 +0200 Message-ID: <87a6mnavkw.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Sean DuBois In-Reply-To: <20210715141738.kks3tffttx2x2dde@Seans-MBP.columbus.rr.com> References: <35ECF0D3-B549-4C43-868F-58021E7F2BDD@pi.pe> <87k0lxw10s.wl-jch@irif.fr> <20210715141738.kks3tffttx2x2dde@Seans-MBP.columbus.rr.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/27.1 Mule/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Fri, 16 Jul 2021 03:36:32 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 60F0E2A0.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 60F0E2A0.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 60F0E2A0.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Message-ID-Hash: ECWKXNLHWNJQPFER5V3E357BC35UF73M X-Message-ID-Hash: ECWKXNLHWNJQPFER5V3E357BC35UF73M X-MailFrom: jch@irif.fr X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: T H Panton , Dave Taht , galene@lists.galene.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.4 Precedence: list Subject: [Galene] Re: using up more ports in ipv6 for better congestion control List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Gal=C3=A8ne_videoconferencing_server_discussion_list?= Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: >> 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