Re: [RE] CE applications (was: RE: [RE] Focus of discussions)
Henry,
>> There may be other simpler, alternative solutions that need
>> to be debated.
Indeed, there may be. That's why I prefer to
interchange a few relatively detailed strawman proposals.
Not only does that help develop future possibilities,
the process of constructing such proposals often helps
identify the shortcomings of current alternatives.
Its always interesting to interchange some outlines of
ideas, but this often suffers from the "grass is always
greener on the other side" syndrome. For every detailed
proposal, there is a rough outline of something else
that (at first) seems simpler.
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 Henry Sariowan
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 3:12 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: [RE] CE applications (was: RE: [RE] Focus of discussions)
>>
>>
>> Your questions highlight the points I mentioned earlier.
>>
>> If the objectives are only to address the configuration below, I believe
>> they can be addressed by a combination of static/dynamic priority
>> queueing and traffic shaping/admission control.
>>
>> But, if the objectives also include, among thers, the faithful carriage
>> of 1394 data / timing, then isochronous enhancement to the 802.3 "may"
>> offer solutions to the QoS problems that are either impossible or very
>> difficult to solve using existing QoS schemes. There may be other
>> simpler, alternative solutions that need to be debated.
>>
c
>>
>> Henry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]
>> On Behalf Of Wadekar, Manoj K
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:55 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: [RE] CE applications (was: RE: [RE] Focus of discussions)
>>
>> Why can't this configuration use prioritization?
>>
>> Say:
>> Voice : priority 7 (highest)
>> Video: priority 6
>> File Transfer : priority 5
>>
>> Assuming Strict Priority scheduling at interface (better algos
>> could
>> be used for fairness).
>>
>> For all practical purposes Voice and Video quality will not see
>> significant degradation. Even through a switch. Jumbo frames can
>>
>> create more jitter though.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Manoj
>>
>> -----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 12:42 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
>>