Bar-BoF about Simplemux and TCM moved to Thursday

ween a set of (virtual) machines. The implementation has been built in C, and it can even run in a low-cost Access Point running OpenWRT. Best regards, Jose Saldana

RE: [tsvwg] New version (v7) of TCM-TF draft

ández-Navajas [mailto:nava...@unizar.es] Enviado el: martes, 10 de junio de 2014 13:02 Para: Eggert, Lars; Jose Saldana CC: tc...@ietf.org; Martin Stiemerling; tsv-area@ietf.org; ts...@ietf.org Asunto: Re: [tsvwg] New version (v7) of TCM-TF draft Hello Lars, I send you some publications that quantif

New version (v7) of TCM-TF draft

(http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/core/). - Adding three new references. - Slightly improving some figures. Your comments will be welcome. Best regards, Jose Saldana - A new version of I-D, draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-07.txt has been successfully submitted by

RE: [tcmtf] Using the concept of "latency budget" for TCM-TF

to be employed with Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows, http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf/ Thanks, Jose PS: A paper about the effect on VoIP: Jose Saldana, Julian Fernandez-Navajas, Jose Ruiz-Mas, Jenifer Murillo, Eduardo Viruete, Jose I. Aznar

RE: [tcmtf] Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments: Problem 2: Path MTU

n the documents: - know the maximum MTU - use it in addition to the Period in order to trigger the sending of the multiplexed packet. Thanks! Jose De: Luigi Iannone [mailto:g...@gigix.net] Enviado el: lunes, 10 de febrero de 2014 16:40 Para: Jose Saldana CC: tc...@ietf.org; tsv-area@iet

RE: [tcmtf] BoF preparation: Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments

have to care – ‘party’ is most obviously one end host, but in some circumstances can be eg ‘Apple iOS’). There’s some quite nice stuff in RFC5218. Best wishes Phil From: tsv-area [mailto:tsv-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana Sent: 05 February 2014 12:05 To: tc...@ietf.org

RE: [tcmtf] Using the concept of "latency budget" for TCM-TF

Hi, Joe, Thanks for the info. You are right. > -Mensaje original- > De: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu] > Enviado el: jueves, 06 de febrero de 2014 23:55 > Para: Jose Saldana; tc...@ietf.org > CC: tsv-area@ietf.org > Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Using the concept of "lat

Using the concept of "latency budget" for TCM-TF

Hi all, The report of the Workshop on Reducing Internet Latency (http://www.internetsociety.org/latency2013) talks about a very interesting concept: "latency budget": "A latency budget is applicable to the application and is consumed by sources of latency." "Latency budgets can be hard or soft

Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments: Problem 5. why is ROHC not a solution?

Problem: Lars: "several of the scenarios you describe for TCM-TF seem to be fully addressed by ROHC, i.e., do not seem to have multiple L3 hops that require creation of a tunnel." See this thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archiv

Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments: Problem 4: Do vendors want standards in this space?

Problem: Bob Briscoe: Do vendors want standards in this space? There are a lot of proprietary products; I would like to hear from other vendors who also would like to see this. We have asked in the mailing list about this, and it has been discussed in this thread:

Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments: Problem 3: additional delays

Problem: Are we adding latency and complexity to save relatively little bandwidth? Bob Briscoe: (.) "I am concerned about adding latency and complexity to save relatively little bandwidth - when there will be a need for checking the network path." Tim Chown: "bufferbloat - could be increasing buf

BoF preparation: Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments

Hi all, In order to prepare the BoF in London, I have tried to summarize the questions that have been discussed, in order to include the improvements in the charter and in the two drafts. On behalf of clarity, I will send different messages with the solutions for each problem. If you think th

Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments: Problem 2: Path MTU

Problem: Gorry: Perhaps we should also look at PMTU issues? Al: Yes. The operations considerations should be thought about. Solution: (see this thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00422.html) The curren

Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments: Problem 1. TCP multiplexing

Problem: TCP multiplexing and effect on TCP dynamics. I think this was the main problem. [R. Peon] This is not being done by a host; it is in network, if a separator does not include timing, it could lose delay signals for congestion control based on delay. Solution: This concern is related

TCM-TF 2nd BoF approved

Hi all, As you may know, the second TCM-TF BoF has been approved, and it will be held in London next March. http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki#Transport We will work in the next weeks in order to prepare it well. Best regards and thanks, Jose

TCM-TF BoF requested for London

Hi all, A second BoF with the aim of creating a WG has been requested for London. You can find the details here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki#Transport Best regards, Jose * Long name and abbreviation: Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows (TCMTF) * Status: W

Next version (v11) of TCM-TF charter draft

According to the comments of David, I have moved the signaling sentences from 5 to 7, and merged the rest of 5 with 6. So this is the new version (Thanks again, David!): Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows (TCM-TF) charter draft v11 Description of Working Group 1. RFC4170 (TCRTP) d

RE: TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London

Thanks! Jose De: Black, David [ <mailto:david.bl...@emc.com> mailto:david.bl...@emc.com] Enviado el: sábado, 04 de enero de 2014 4:05 Para: Jose Saldana; <mailto:tc...@ietf.org> tc...@ietf.org; <mailto:tsv-area@ietf.org> tsv-area@ietf.org CC: Martin Stiemerling; Black,

TCM-TF current drafts

Hi all, these are the current versions of the two drafts related to TCM-TF: Current version of Document (TCM-TF - reference model): https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf/ Current version of Document (TCM-TF - recommendations): http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-suz

Next version (v10) of TCM-TF charter draft

Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows (TCM-TF) charter draft v10 Description of Working Group 1. RFC4170 (TCRTP) defines a method for grouping packets when a number of UDP/RTP VoIP flows share a common path, considering three different layers: ECRTP header compression; PPPMux multi

RE: TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London

David, Thanks for your valuable comments! I will improve the charter according to your suggestions and release a new version. Thanks again, Jose De: Black, David [mailto:david.bl...@emc.com] Enviado el: sábado, 04 de enero de 2014 4:05 Para: Jose Saldana; tc...@ietf.org; tsv

TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London

Hi all, After the feedback received in the BoF in Berlin, we have updated the TCM-TF charter and the two drafts. We have tried to solve all the problems raised during the session. Our plan is to request a new BoF in London next March, so we would like to know your opinion about these two qu

New version of the "TCM-TF Reference Model" draft

Hi all, I have just uploaded a new version of the tcmtf "main" draft (draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-06). Thanks a lot for your feedback in the list! These are the improvements: 1) New title: Now it is "TCM-TF Reference Model". 2) Improved text in "1.2.4. Optimization of small-packet flows" 3) A

TCM-TF: New Scenarios section

Hi all. I am working on the next version of the TCM-TF "reference model" draft. I have re-written the Scenarios section, according to David's classification, and taking into account the discussion of the last weeks. So I would like to hear your opinion. I have also included three new figures.

RE: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft

Hi. I am not sure I understand the problem. Let's use two examples. a) You have a bottleneck of 1 Mbps, and the offered traffic is: - UDP 1.1 Mbps - TCP. It will take as much as it can, using its mechanisms. In this case, UDP flows will have a lot of delay and packet loss, since they do not reac

RE: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft

> 20%. Netflix detects there is much more bandwidth and TCP opens its > window to engulf that new 20% available. You are mostly back to where > you were. > So, if you go throughout the trouble of compressing some traffic, would that > need to be couple with some protection? >

RE: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft

> Para: jsald...@unizar.es > CC: tc...@ietf.org; tsv-area@ietf.org; 'Martin Stiemerling'; 'Spencer > Dawkins' > Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft > > Hi Jose, > > On 25 Nov 2013, at 08:44, Jose Saldana wrote: >

New version (v9) of the TCM-TF Charter draft. Comments

Hi all. According to what we have discussed in the list in the last weeks, I have re-built the Charter. It is in another e-mail, just sent to the list. These are the main improvements: a) the points have been reordered in order to show clearly that we are widening the scope of an alread

New version (v9) of the TCM-TF Charter draft

TCM-TF charter draft v9 Description of Working Group 1. RFC4170 (TCRTP) defines a method for grouping packets when a number of RTP VoIP flows share a common path, considering three different layers: header compression by means of ECRTP; multiplexing by means of PPPMux; tunneling by means of L2TPv

RE: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft

Internet > Routers². Not sure compressing flows between peering routers is a good > use-case. > > > On 11/20/13, 3:13 AM, "Jose Saldana" wrote: > > >TCM-TF charter draft v8 > > > >Description of Working Group > > > >1. In the last ye

RE: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft

(repenno); Spencer Dawkins > Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft > > Hi, > > On 22 Nov 2013, at 09:50, Jose Saldana wrote: > > > Hi, Lars. > > > > During the BoF in Berlin, I got the impression that the problem was > &g

RE: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft

ietf.org; tsv-area@ietf.org; Martin Stiemerling; Reinaldo Penno > (repenno); Spencer Dawkins > Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft > > Hi, > > On 2013-11-22, at 4:50, Jose Saldana wrote: > > This is a very interesting point: we cannot assume tha

RE: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft

s no sense. I have added two comments inline: > De: Eggert, Lars [mailto:l...@netapp.com] > Enviado el: jueves, 21 de noviembre de 2013 18:09 > > Hi, > > On 2013-11-21, at 11:56, Jose Saldana wrote: > > - in a pair of appliances creating a tunnel between two offices of

RE: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft

umber of flows they are exchanging between a pair of Internet > Routers². Not sure compressing flows between peering routers is a good > use-case. > > > On 11/20/13, 3:13 AM, "Jose Saldana" wrote: > > >TCM-TF charter draft v8 > > > >Description o

RE: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8

es, 20 de noviembre de 2013 18:20 > Para: jsald...@unizar.es > CC: tc...@ietf.org; Martin Stiemerling; tsv-area@ietf.org > Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8 > > Hi, > > On 2013-11-20, at 12:15, Jose Saldana wrote: > > - a satellite connection

RE: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8

the TCM-TF charter draft v8 Hi, On 2013-11-20, at 10:24, Jose Saldana wrote: > But if you want to use it in more than a single hop, ROHC has to be > tunneled, and you lose the savings achieved by compression. So the > idea is that a number of packets (multiplexed) share the tunnel overhe

RE: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8

have been removed. > > 7- A reference to the potential problem of the MTU and packet loss has > been added in number 8: "The eventual impact of multiplexing on > protocol dynamics (e.g. the lost of a multiplexed packet, MTU-related > issues) will also have to be addressed.." > > > Any other suggestions, according to what we discussed in the BoF? > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-tcmtf > > > Best regards, > > Jose Saldana >

Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft

TCM-TF charter draft v8 Description of Working Group 1. In the last years we are witnessing the raise of new real-time services that use the Internet for the delivery of interactive multimedia applications: VoIP, videoconferencing, telemedicine, video vigilance, online gaming, etc. Due to the nee

Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8

plexed packet, MTU-related issues) will also have to be addressed.." Any other suggestions, according to what we discussed in the BoF? http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-tcmtf Best regards, Jose Saldana

RE: [tcmtf] Community Neworks: any idea about them?

s and perform > simulations on realistic traffic mixes. > Is anyone aware of any available traffic traces from such community > networks? > Cheers! > Mirko > > -Original Message- > From: tcmtf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:tcmtf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Jose Sald

RE: [tcmtf] Community Neworks: any idea about them?

> > > From: tsv-area-boun...@ietf.org [tsv-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Jose Saldana [jsald...@unizar.es] > Sent: 10 October 2013 10:13 > To: tsv-area@ietf.org > Cc: tc...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [tcmtf] Community Nework

RE: [tcmtf] Community Neworks: any idea about them?

re efficiently is > definitely useful. > > Just a digression: have you considered the use of UDP-lite for TCM-TF? > > Regards > Arjuna > > On 8 October 2013 12:44, Jose Saldana wrote: > > Hi, Arjuna, > > > > The idea of multipath TCP sounds interesting. It c

RE: [tcmtf] Community Neworks: any idea about them?

he TIER group in berkeley have done quite a lot of nice work with wireless > for developing countries: > tier.cs.berkeley.edu/ > > Happy to discuss more :) > > Regards > Arjuna > > On 8 October 2013 10:24, Jose Saldana wrote: > > Hi all. > > > > >

Community Neworks: any idea about them?

Hi all. I have recently "discovered" the concept of Community Networks. They are "large scale, self-organized and decentralized networks, built and operated by citizens for citizens." They are "also self-owned and self-managed by community members, self-growing in links, capacity and services p

RE: TCM-TF: Path MTU

> -Mensaje original- > De: Reinaldo Penno (repenno) [mailto:repe...@cisco.com] > Enviado el: viernes, 27 de septiembre de 2013 16:12 > Para: jsald...@unizar.es; tsv-area@ietf.org; tc...@ietf.org > Asunto: Re: TCM-TF: Path MTU > > > > On 9/27/13 6:5

TCM-TF: Path MTU

Just my opinion about the MTU problem when TCM-optimizing: (…)  3) Path MTU discovery issues   >>>[RP] Very important issue. There are some gaming consoles  that  just by putting their packets in a lightweight UDP tunnel you get a message >>>saying you have MTU issues and everything stops. D

RE: TCM-TF: topics to be discussed in the list

discussed in the list Hello Jose, I will try to jump start the discussion. I'm not a gaming console vendor but sometimes deal with issues in this space due to ISP worries. Inline with [RP] From: Jose Saldana Organization: Universidad de Zaragoza Reply-To: "jsald...

TCM-TF: topics to be discussed in the list

ice that needs to be known by a tunnel." Any other questions? Thanks a lot, Jose Saldana

Next steps with TCM-TF

eir feedback. Thanks in advance, Jose Saldana

I-D Action: draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-05.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-05.txt has been successfully submitted by Jose Saldana and posted to the IETF repository. Filename:draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf Revision:05 Title: Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows (TCM-TF) Creation date: 2013

RE: Draft agenda for the IETF-87 TSV Area meeting uploaded

Hi, Martin. Regarding the "Online Games Tutorial", Mirko and I are adjusting the presentation in order to spend just 45 minutes. We have received some interesting suggestions after announcing it in the IETF87attendees mailing list. We think we will show and capture the traffic of 3 different games

RE: [tcmtf] Improved version of the tmctf Draft charter (v6)

r "the impact of > TCMTF protocol on protocol dynamics". My suggestion is to use option c). > > What do you think? > > Thank you for your great effort! > > Best, > > Fernando Pascual Blanco > Telefónica Global Resources > Network Automation and D

RE: [tcmtf] Improved version of the tmctf Draft charter (v6)

eventual impact of multiplexing on protocol dynamics (e.g. when multiplexing TCP flows) will also have to be addressed.” Jose > -Mensaje original- > De: tcmtf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:tcmtf-boun...@ietf.org] En nombre de > Jose Saldana > Enviado el: jueves, 13 de junio de 2013

Improved version of the tmctf Draft charter (v6)

This is the new proposal, adapted to the new distribution of the documents. I explain the changes in another e-mail. It is also here, in a formatted version: http://diec.unizar.es/~jsaldana/personal/ietf/tcmtf_charter_draft.pdf TCMTF charter draft v6 Description of Working Group 1. In the last

TCMTF: Documents to be generated. Small modification

gt; >> impression > > is > >> that you may want to point the reader of documents A & B to the same > >> reference model, and instead of repeating the same text, it may be > >> helpful to separate this into a separate document. > >> > >> Also,

RE: [tcmtf] About the possibility of having a BOF about TCMTF in IETF87

ich your deliverables A & B are aimed at? My > >> impression > > is > >> that you may want to point the reader of documents A & B to the same > >> reference model, and instead of repeating the same text, it may be > >> helpful to separate this into a

RE: [tcmtf] About the possibility of having a BOF about TCMTF in IETF87

gt; De: tcmtf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:tcmtf-boun...@ietf.org] En nombre de > Jose Saldana > Enviado el: lunes, 18 de febrero de 2013 9:50 > Para: tsv-area@ietf.org > CC: tc...@ietf.org > Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] About the possibility of having a BOF about TCMTF in > IETF87 > > Hi

RE: [tcmtf] About the possibility of having a BOF about TCMTF in IETF87

t would guide any future work. > > -ken > > ps, I don't want to advocate more work, but rather just have you consider > other possibilities (and feel free to shoot them down :-) > > > On Feb 22, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > > > Hi Ken, >

RE: [tcmtf] About the possibility of having a BOF about TCMTF in IETF87

Hi Ken, Sorry for the delay. I think you are talking about Paragraph 5: 5. So the first objective of this group is to specify the protocol stack for tunneling, compressing and multiplexing traffic flows (TCMTF). Since standard protocols are being used at each layer, the signaling methods of those

RE: About the possibility of having a BOF about TCMTF in IETF87

://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00191.html The mailing list we are using for preparing the BOF is tc...@ietf.org (https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf) If you have any suggestions for improvement, they will be welcome. Best regards, Jose Saldana -Mensaje original- De: tsv

RE: About the possibility of having a BOF about TCMTF in IETF87

@ietf.org; tc...@ietf.org; Gonzalo Camarillo; Martin Stiemerling > Asunto: Re: About the possibility of having a BOF about TCMTF in IETF87 > > Hi, > > On Jan 30, 2013, at 18:21, Jose Saldana wrote: > > The main idea (see also the Charter proposal below) is to define a > > met

About the possibility of having a BOF about TCMTF in IETF87

Milestones* Specification of TCMTF protocol stack (A) and signaling mechanisms. Recommendations (B) of using existing traffic classification methods, maximum delay and jitter to add, depending on the service. -- Thank you very much, Jose Saldana > -Mensaje original- >

RE: AQM work in the IETF

lto:to...@isi.edu] > Enviado el: martes, 04 de diciembre de 2012 18:17 > Para: jsald...@unizar.es > CC: 'Matthew Ford'; 'Wesley Eddy'; tsv-area@ietf.org > Asunto: Re: AQM work in the IETF > > > > On 12/4/2012 1:07 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > > Hi all.

RE: AQM work in the IETF

Hi all. I am following the discussion about buffers and AQM, so here go my 2 cents: In our research group in the University of Zaragoza, we have studied the effect of different buffer policies on some services, mainly real-time ones based on UDP (VoIP and networked games), when competing with othe

RE: IETF 85 TSVAREA planning

Wes, Hello again. After Vancouver meeting you told me that you would like to talk a bit more about TCMTF, to put all things together. Ok, we can talk about it when you want. In the meantime, people from DLR (German Aerospace Center) have also become interested on multiplexing, in a scenario with a