Re: [RE] Is anything special required??
Arthur,
>> Ah but is there such a difference? Internet radio and TV seem to do OK
>> over best effort networks.
They are also not interactive and large buffers can therefore be used
with less severe repercussions.
>> In an over-provisioned home environment I am not convinced a
>> user would notice any difference when watching video or
>> listening to music.
With a wide range of possible loss-suppression techniques
(dup'd video frames, redundant audio, etc.) and audience
types (audiophile, joe sixpack, etc.) I'm sure you could
be right some of the time for some of the people.
For some of us, the goals are to allow time-sensitive
traffic to occupy 75% of the bandwidth on 100Mb/s links,
with no other loading or topology constraints. This is
a bit easier to deal with, since the abstract quantities
of "over provisioned" and "would notice" are better
quantified and therefore measurable/provable.
While the preceding goals, there do seem to be a few
special subscription and pacing requirements.
Do you disagree on those goals, or on the conclusions
we have reached, based on those goals?
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 Arthur Marris
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 5:36 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [RE] Grand master identifier
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> > But I have to make the point.. There is a massive difference
>> > between a) channels that are indeed medium definition but are
>> > always there, always at the same quality levels, in-a-word
>> > reliable, and b) best effort.
>>
>> Ah but is there such a difference? Internet radio and TV seem to do OK
>> over best effort networks. In an over-provisioned home environment I am
>> not convinced a user would notice any difference when watching video or
>> listening to music.
>>
>> Arthur.
>>