[R-C] [ledbat] LEDBAT vs RTCWeb

[Stefan Holmer]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Michael Welzl <michawe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:

>
> On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
>
>  On 04/20/2012 07:55 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Randell,
>>>
>>> I didn't follow the whole discussion but regarding LEDBAT we have a
>>> TARGET
>>> delay of max. 100ms. That means you can choose a smaller one. We've
>>> chosen
>>> 100ms as a max as there is an ITU recommendation that 150 ms delay is
>>> acceptable for most user voice applications and we wanted for sure stay
>>> below
>>> that.
>>>
>>
>> 100 ms + 75ms speed of light delay across the US (or equivalent across
>> Europe, for example) + 100ms at the receiving end....
>>
>> Of course, it's even worse between continents, even without broken
>> networks.
>>
>> Not so nice....
>>
>
> Not argueing about your point here (I agree that we have to fix the edge),
> but: LEDBAT is an end-to-end mechanism, so I think that the 100ms reflect
> the total measured end-to-end delay.
>

Is this really the case? I interpret that the target (100 ms) refers to
queueing delay, since LEDBAT tries to minimize target - queueing_delay,
where queueing_delay = current_delay - base_delay. Could be wrong though.


>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Rtp-congestion mailing list
> Rtp-congestion at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/**mailman/listinfo/rtp-**congestion<http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtp-congestion>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtp-congestion/attachments/20120420/33015a8a/attachment.html>