Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [RE] CE applications (was: RE: [RE] Focus of discussions)



<DC> I will use John's scenario to comment on various subsequent
replies, in an attempt to summarize the discussion so far.

1- As Kevin pointed out, priority of .1Q helps somewhat.
2- As Michael reminded us, priority only has the effect of "bunching"
high priority packets together, especially in a packet network that is
non-preemptive.

I like the comment that popped up in the last meeting prior to the CFI:
AV needs priority on a PER-TIME basis. That is, a switch may or may not
give priority to an AV frame in detriment of a data frame depending on
how early the frame needs to be "played out" at the destination. If we
are able to show a clear application of this, I guess we are done with
the argument of having some sort of synchronous delivery mechanism in
the PAR...

</DC>

Dirceu Cavendish
NEC Labs America
10080 North Wolfe Road Suite SW3-350
Cupertino, CA 95014
Tel: 408-863-6041 Fax: 408-863-6099


-----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