Re: [RE] CE applications (was: RE: [RE] Focus of discussions)
Excuse me for responding to my own post but I'd also like to point out the
overprovisoning solution to this scenario.
Current home-class servers are challenged to saturate even a 100Mbit link
with intelligent data. Even if neither the server nor client bandwidth were
a bottleneck, bandwidth delay product issues inherent in TCP would likely
slow down your file transfer and leave plenty of room for the streams.
At 1Gbit, the network is clearly overprovisioned and would work fine even
without 802.1Q.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG] On
Behalf Of Gross, Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:54 AM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [RE] CE applications (was: RE: [RE] Focus of discussions)
Isn't this scenario addressed by 802.1Q? 802.1Q is implemented in switches
but also in the network stacks of end stations. The file copy would be
assigned a lower priority and the network stack in device A would recognize
this and queue packets for transmission from the streams ahead of the file
copy transmissions.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Gildred
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 1:42 AM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [RE] CE applications (was: RE: [RE] Focus of discussions)
Here is one use case which needs a CE (cheap HW) solution:
-2 AV (A and B) devices are connected via CAT-5e crossover cable
-the devices have a full duplex gigabit link
-one of the devices may be a PC with AV features
-3 AV applications are fighting to use the link at the same time
1. uncompressed mutli-channel audio (as RTP streams) from A to B
(needs ~50Mbps)
2. compressed HDTV stream via HTTP from A to B (needs ~25Mbps with
overhead)
3. HTTP file copy for immediate viewing from A to B (file is 20GB
video file)
-packets go over the link on first-come, first-serve basis
-application #3 decides to burst the copy at max speed
-the fat pipe is now very unusable for AV applications #1 and #2
-John Gildred
Vice President of Engineering
Pioneer Research Center USA
A Division of Pioneer Electronics
101 Metro Drive, Suite 264
San Jose, California 95110
john@pioneer-pra.com
(408) 437-1800 x105
(408) 437-1717 Fax
(510) 295-7770 Mobile
On Aug 31, 2004, at 8:49 PM, Gross, Kevin wrote:
> I've been doing a bit of prodding on point 1 here. No response yet.
>
> On point 2 I would be happy if we could start by identifying a use
> case that
> cannot be addressed through modest overprovisioning.
>
> As for connection based IP QoS, I see how that is useful getting _to_
> the
> home, but I don't expect to see that deployed _in_ the home.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Henry
> Sariowan
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 6:23 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [RE] CE applications (was: RE: [RE] Focus of discussions)
>
> Having followed the ongoing discussion, this group needs to have solid
> answers for the following issues:
>
> 1. Comprehensive list of all LEGITIMATE use cases for Residential
> Ethernet
>
> 2. Technical and business reasons why some, if not all, of the use
> cases
> cannot be addressed by the existing QoS solutions
>
> 3. All fundamental characteristics of the Residential Ethernet that are
> required to address the use cases
>
> And I think, some of these fundamental RE characteristics that cannot
> be
> addressed by existing IP-based QOS (consisting of a combination of
> admission control/traffic shaping, QoS scheduling (such as WFQ), and
> reservation signaling) should include at least:
> - (virtually) CONSTANT, SUB-MILLISECOND latency for the
> real-time traffic
> - (virtually) ZERO/SUB-FRAME jitter for the real-time traffic
> - (virtually) ZERO packet loss for the real-time traffic
> - SIMPLE bandwidth/connection reservation scheme
>
> IMHO, by clearly highlighting the technical requirement that cannot be
> addressed by the existing QoS solutions, people can start seeing the
> need for an alternative solution.
>
> Henry
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Richard
> Brand
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 3:56 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [RE] CE applications (was: RE: [RE] Focus of discussions)
>
> Kevin:
> Ask the Consumer Electronics Association if Dolby 5.1 ==> Dolby 6.0 is
> selling well. Take a listen sometime.
> Also, remember that we in the tech industry are atypical of most of the
> consumer product customer base.
> I'd recommend that you book your rooms in Vegas now for the Consumer
> Electronics show in Jan. to understand this industry (why we called it
> "Residential Ethernet"). You cannot assess unless you can experience
> it. FYI attendance at the CEA show has far surpassed the attendance of
> any of our technology or computer/communications trade shows. Been to
> Comdex lately?
> Richard
>
> "Gross, Kevin" wrote:
>
>> I don't work day-to-day in consumer applications but I haven't
>> recently seen that sector make many successful decisions that favor
>> fidelity over functionality.
>>
>> The recent successes in the consumer electronics market have all
>> introduced new functionality (sometimes paired with increased
>> fidelity) - DVD, Direct satellite, MP3, TiVO.
>>
>> Advances that focus on improved fidelity have not faired as well -
>> Super audio CD, DVD Audio, High-definition TV.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@listserv.ieee.org
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Lou
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:53 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: [RE] CE applications (was: RE: [RE] Focus of discussions)
>>
>> On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 11:24, Dirceu Cavendish wrote:
>>> <DC> I guess anything with less quality than what current CE AV
>>> equipment provides is unacceptable. Am I wrong? Or would we follow
>>> the VoIP trend of replacing high quality voice calls with something
>>> of less quality? Over to CE guys...
>>> </DC>
>>
>> I would tend to agree. The only thing I would add is that for
>> consumer grade equipment, perceived quality (as measured by a typical
>> ear/eye vs. a spec sheet) must not be less than current equipment and
>> any quality degradation must be offset by other beneficial factors
>> (convenience, cost, etc). Examples are MP3 vs. CD, JPEG vs. lossless
>> compression, etc.
>>
>> -Dennis