Re: [RE] Lab proof of RES-E needs
Hello all,
I monitor this reflector but I am not active, but I thought I might reply to this
thread. My disclaimer statement (for those who don't know it): is that the need for
absolute Qos in the Consumer Home network is many years away. But I'm not
replying to debate that.I thought that if anyone were to try and make a "Lab Proof"
for a Consumer Home network that they should make sure and get the topology
accurate. I suppose you'll want to constrain the topology to just RES-E, which I
think is very limiting for the consumer home network. The consumer home
network will be hetrogeneous at the physical level.
So the topology should reflect a 8 port Router/Gateway device and perhaps some
switches where number of Ethernet devices might be clustered. Since a router is
easily upgraded from today, I would argue the router can support gigabit links,
but not all end devices will. Make a use case of the worst case consumer
example...assume 2 parents and 3 kids for the mass market consumer family. Go
ahead and assume 20MB video streams, but the future says those will be cut to a
3rd of that (MPEG4 and VC9). Actually you will need to include a mobile component
to the consumer network, VOIP phones and cameras displaying pictures on a TV,
but I'm not sure how RES-E is addressing wireless (or any other type of
interconnect).
Anyway, It would be nice to see where the congestion will be in the consumer
home network. Seems like it will be the router, and most links may have 1 or 2
video streams on them and some data traffic, worst case. Actually perhaps one
should first list what the mass market household will contain for devices. i.e 3
tvs,
three stereos, media server, set-top box with pvr, some mobile music players, 3
PCs, and some network storage is a suggestion. but I'm sure that can be debated.
I suppose one should also show how simple priority (as being discussed in UPnP
and DLNA) would not be adequate.
Oddly, I thought RES-E was already justified, So what I would like to see is how
RES-E integrates into the above home and existing devices 4 years from now.
Being in the consumer industry I can, without a doubt, say that consumers are
incremental..new devices will be added, the old devices, like the TV, will exist a
long time.
(I'm using web mail as I am traveling, sorry for any spellling mistakes:-)
Well that's my input on the subject,
Glen Stone
Technical Committee Chair, DLNA
>Richard,
>
>I have my doubts about the validity of simulations, with respect
>to capturing worst-case events. I prefer mathematical and/or
>conceptual proofs. Simulations are better at illustrating
>things like bandwidth utilization under load, which is more
>of a statistical measurement.
>
>The problem with simulations is they are very rarely exactly
>equal to the setup of your key customer and/or magazine reviewer.
>The financial penalties for correcting the "oops" equipment
>in the field, as well as the loss of reputation, can be severe
>after these "oops" events.
>
>DVJ
>
>David V. James
>3180 South Ct
>Palo Alto, CA 94306
>Home: +1.650.494.0926
> +1.650.856.9801
>Cell: +1.650.954.6906
>Fax: +1.360.242.5508
>Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Richard Brand
>Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 8:00 PM
>To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [RE] Lab proof of RES-E needs
>
>
>Glenn:
>Can I commit to your proposal at the meeting next week?
>Richard
>
>"Algie, Glenn [CAR:0S00:EXCH]" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>If enough doubt exists then how about we derive a Residential setup and
>drop some boxes into a residential lab of someone's and capture the
>performance numbers as well as see it subjectively.
>
>
>Nortel may be able to offer something here. But we may not have all the
>pieces or test equipment.
>
>
>Any interest?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [ mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
><mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG> ] On Behalf Of Gross, Kevin
>Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 5:35 PM
>To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [RE] Stream identification at the MAC SAP
>
>
>I think it would be interesting to flesh out and analyze this use case.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [ mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
><mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG> ] On Behalf Of Tuck, Fred
>Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 2:04 PM
>To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [RE] Stream identification at the MAC SAP
>
>
>I don't think that when you are potentially running several 20MB/s HD
>video streams over your network and then someone wants to copy a DVD
>sized file from one computer to another that over-provisioning is going
>to be up to the task. You can always find a way to saturate the
>network. I believe that we need both QoS and reservation.
>
>
>Fred Tuck
>EchoStar.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gross, Kevin [ mailto:kevin.gross@CIRRUS.COM
><mailto:kevin.gross@CIRRUS.COM> ]
>Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 3:51 PM
>To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [RE] Stream identification at the MAC SAP
>
>
>I believe that adequate QoS on a home scale network can be achieved
>easily with layer 2 protocols and over-provisioning.
>
>
>My arguments on this topic were not well received here.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [ mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
><mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG> ] On Behalf Of Matt Squire
>Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 8:04 PM
>To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [RE] Stream identification at the MAC SAP
>
>
>> Oddly enough, with Residential Ethernet (at least the way some of us
>> have been envisioning it), you could really toss the PBX out the
>> window without losing any quality of service.
>
>
>Seems like people have already tossed the PBX out the window, and
>they're not having any problems. So if that the benefit of RE, its a
>little late.
>
>
>And all of those real-time and synchronized applications working great,
>and outside the scope of 802. Which is (not coincidentally) one of my
>big questions about some of the work being investigated by this study
>group - why does 802 need to define isochronous services at all?
>
>
>People have been running real-time and synchronized applications over
>Ethernet for a long time. Timing issues are generally best addressed
>end-to-end at the application layer, and above L2. Not everything has
>to be addressed within 802.3.
>
>
>- Matt
>
>
_________________________________________________________
WebPerception- Everything you want in an Internet connection- guaranteed.
http://www.webperception.com * Telephone 415.892.7711