Subject: New version (v7) of TCM-TF draft

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:38:42 +0200

Hi all.
 
A new version (v7) of the main TCM-TF draft has been submitted to the IETF
web page.
 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf/
 
Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows (TCM-TF) Reference Model,
draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-07

Some of the improvements are:
 
- Stating that TCM-TF must keep backwards compatibility with RFC4170. Some
people suggested it on the last BoF, because some devices already implement
it.
- Adding some new information about Community Networks.
- Adding the possibility of optimizing UDP traffic of Constrained RESTful
Environments (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/core/).
- Adding three new references.
- Slightly improving some figures.
 
Your comments will be welcome.
 
Best regards,
 
Jose Saldana
-----------------------------------------
A new version of I-D, draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-07.txt has been successfully
submitted by Jose Saldana and posted to the IETF repository.
 
Name:             draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf
Revision:         07
Title:                Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows
(TCM-TF) Reference Model
Document date:         2014-06-10
Group:             Individual Submission
Pages:                        26
URL:
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-07.txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-07.txt
Status:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf/>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf/
Htmlized:        <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-07>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-07
Diff:
<http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-07>
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-07
 
Abstract:
   Tunneling Compressed and Multiplexed Traffic Flows (TCM-TF) is a
   method for improving the bandwidth utilization of network segments
   that carry multiple flows in parallel sharing a common path.  The
   method combines standard protocols for header compression,
   multiplexing, and tunneling over a network path for the purpose of
   reducing the bandwidth.  The amount of packets per second can also be
   reduced.
 
   This document describes the TCM-TF framework and the different
   options which can be used for each layer (header compression,
   multiplexing and tunneling).

 
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
 
The IETF Secretariat

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:59:25 +0000

Hi,

are there any measurements or simulations that would quantify the benefits (in terms of bandwidth) and drawbacks (in terms of latency)?

Lars

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:23:43 +0200

Thanks, Julián.
 
Just a brief summary:
 
a) VoIP
- The bandwidth savings for VoIP could be up to 57%, if RTP and G729a with 2
samples per packet are used. ECRTP was used for header compression.
- pps can be reduced in the same factor as the number of flows. Up to 40
flows can be grouped together.
- in this case, the additional latency would be 20ms (inter-packet time).
This was translated into a 1% reduction of R-Factor (ranging from 1 to 100).

- ITU’s R-factor [1] is calculated from delay and packet loss
- If background traffic appears, optimized traffic can even increase
subjective quality, since the overall traffic gets reduced and so does
packet loss rate. So optimization increases delay but may reduce packet
loss.
 
Another paper about multiplexing VoIP is [3]

b) UDP-based online games
- The bandwidth savings for 8 games were obtained. For IPv4, 30 or 35% of
the bandwidth was saved. For IPv6 the reduction was between 50 and 55%.
- pps were reduced by a factor of 5 or 10
- the additional latency tested was between 5 and 50 ms. The jitter has to
be taken into account, since multiplexing adds jitter (the first packets are
delayed more than the last ones)
- A subjective quality estimator for “Quake IV” was used [2]. It is based on
delay and jitter. Packet loss does not matter, because these games implement
very good methods for concealing it.
- The MOS could be above 3.5 when multiplexing was on.
 
Jose
 
[1] ITU-T Recommendation G.107 (2011) The E-model, a computational model for
use in transmission planning.
 
[2] Wattimena A.F, Kooij R.E, van Vugt J.M, Ahmed O.K (2006) Predicting the
perceived quality of a first person shooter: the Quake IV G-model. In
Proceedings 5th SIGCOMM workshop on Network and system support for games
(NetGames '06), ACM, New York, NY, USA
 
[3] Pereira R.M, Tarouco L.M (2009) Adaptive Multiplexing Based on E-model
for Reducing Network Overhead in Voice over IP Security Ensuring
Conversation Quality. In Proceedings Fourth international Conference on
Digital Telecommunications, Washington DC, pp. 53-58
 
De: Julián Fernández-Navajas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Enviado el: martes, 10 de junio de 2014 13:02
Para: Eggert, Lars; Jose Saldana
CC: [email-masked]; Martin Stiemerling; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Asunto: Re: [tsvwg] New version (v7) of TCM-TF draft
 
Hello Lars,

I send you some publications that quantify the benefits (in terms of
bandwidth) and drawbacks (in terms of latency and loss).
VoIP: this paper evaluates the bandwidth savings and also the influence of
multiplexing on VoIP subjective quality (using ITU’s E-Model):
"
<http://diec.unizar.es/%7Ejsaldana/personal/computer_networks_2012_in_proc.p
df> Evaluating the Influence of Multiplexing Schemes and Buffer
Implementation on Perceived VoIP Conversation Quality," Computer Networks
<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/computer-networks/>  (Elsevier), Volume
56, Issue 7, Pages 1893-1919, May 2012.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2012.02.004> doi
10.1016/j.comnet.2012.02.004
 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2012.02.004>  
Online games: This paper also calculates bandwidth savings:
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2012.02.004> 
 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2012.02.004> First Person Shooters: Can
a Smarter Network Save Bandwidth without Annoying the Players?," IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 49, no.11, pp. 190-198, November 2011. doi:
10.1109/MCOM.2011.6069728
 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2011.6069728>  
And this one is focused on the effect on subjective quality (using a
subjective quality estimator for a FPS game):
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2011.6069728> 
 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2011.6069728> "Online FPS Games: Effect of
Router Buffer and Multiplexing Techniques on Subjective Quality Estimators,"
Multimedia Tools and Applications, Springer. doi 10.1007/s11042-012-1309-4
 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11042-012-1309-4>  
Regards
Julián
 
 El 10/06/2014 10:59, Eggert, Lars escribió:
Hi,
 
are there any measurements or simulations that would quantify the benefits
(in terms of bandwidth) and drawbacks (in terms of latency)?
 
Lars
 
  _____