draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-03.txt   draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-04.txt 
Network Working Group Z. Sarker Network Working Group Z. Sarker
Internet-Draft Ericsson AB Internet-Draft Ericsson AB
Intended status: Informational V. Singh Intended status: Informational V. Singh
Expires: September 9, 2016 callstats.io Expires: April 29, 2017 callstats.io
X. Zhu X. Zhu
M. Ramalho M. Ramalho
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
March 08, 2016 October 26, 2016
Test Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals Test Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-03 draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-04
Abstract Abstract
The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used to transmit media in The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used to transmit media in
multimedia telephony applications, these applications are typically multimedia telephony applications, these applications are typically
required to implement congestion control. This document describes required to implement congestion control. This document describes
the test cases to be used in the performance evaluation of such the test cases to be used in the performance evaluation of such
congestion control algorithms. congestion control algorithms.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 33 skipping to change at page 2, line 33
Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.5. Round Trip Time Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.5. Round Trip Time Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.6. Media Flow Competing with a Long TCP Flow . . . . . . . . 21 5.6. Media Flow Competing with a Long TCP Flow . . . . . . . . 21
5.7. Media Flow Competing with Short TCP Flows . . . . . . . . 23 5.7. Media Flow Competing with Short TCP Flows . . . . . . . . 23
5.8. Media Pause and Resume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.8. Media Pause and Resume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. Other potential test cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6. Other potential test cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1. Media Flows with Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.1. Media Flows with Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.2. Explicit Congestion Notification Usage . . . . . . . . . 27 6.2. Explicit Congestion Notification Usage . . . . . . . . . 27
6.3. Multiple Bottlenecks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.3. Multiple Bottlenecks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Wireless Access Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7. Wireless Access Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This memo describes a set of test cases for evaluating congestion This memo describes a set of test cases for evaluating congestion
control algorithm proposals for real-time interactive media. It is control algorithm proposals for real-time interactive media. It is
skipping to change at page 25, line 15 skipping to change at page 25, line 15
+ Number and Types of sources : ten (10), short-lived TCP + Number and Types of sources : ten (10), short-lived TCP
flows. flows.
+ Traffic direction : forward + Traffic direction : forward
+ Congestion algorithm: default TCP Congestion control + Congestion algorithm: default TCP Congestion control
[RFC5681]. [RFC5681].
+ Traffic timeline: each short TCP flow is modeled as a + Traffic timeline: each short TCP flow is modeled as a
sequence of file downloads interleaved with idle periods. sequence of file downloads interleaved with idle periods.
See test specific setup. Not all short TCP flows start at Not all short TCP flows start at the same time, 2 of them
the same time, 2 of them start in the ON state while rest on start in the ON state while rest of the 8 flows start in an
the 8 flows start in an OFF stats. The model for the idle OFF stats. For description of short TCP flow model see test
times for the OFF state is discussed in specific information below.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria].
o Test Specific Information: o Test Specific Information:
* Short-TCP traffic model: * Short-TCP traffic model: The short TCP model to be used in this
test is described in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria].
+ File sizes: uniform distribution between 100KB to 1MB
+ Idle period: the duration of the OFF state is derived from
an exponential distribution with the mean value of 10
seconds.
5.8. Media Pause and Resume 5.8. Media Pause and Resume
In this test case, more than one real-time interactive media flows In this test case, more than one real-time interactive media flows
share the link bandwidth and all flows reach to a steady state by share the link bandwidth and all flows reach to a steady state by
utilizing the link capacity in an optimum way. At this stage one of utilizing the link capacity in an optimum way. At this stage one of
the media flows is paused for a moment. This event will result in the media flows is paused for a moment. This event will result in
more available bandwidth for the rest of the flows as they are on a more available bandwidth for the rest of the flows as they are on a
shared link. When the paused media flow resumes it would no longer shared link. When the paused media flow resumes it would no longer
have the same bandwidth share on the link. It has to make it's way have the same bandwidth share on the link. It has to make it's way
skipping to change at page 31, line 11 skipping to change at page 30, line 49
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.
[RFC5506] Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size [RFC5506] Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size
Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities
and Consequences", RFC 5506, DOI 10.17487/RFC5506, April and Consequences", RFC 5506, DOI 10.17487/RFC5506, April
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5506>. 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5506>.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria]
Singh, V. and J. Ott, "Evaluating Congestion Control for Singh, V., Ott, J., and S. Holmer, "Evaluating Congestion
Interactive Real-time Media", draft-ietf-rmcat-eval- Control for Interactive Real-time Media", draft-ietf-
criteria-04 (work in progress), October 2015. rmcat-eval-criteria-06 (work in progress), September 2016.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests]
Sarker, Z., Johansson, I., Zhu, X., Fu, J., Tan, W., and Sarker, Z., Johansson, I., Zhu, X., Fu, J., Tan, W., and
M. Ramalho, "Evaluation Test Cases for Interactive Real- M. Ramalho, "Evaluation Test Cases for Interactive Real-
Time Media over Wireless Networks", draft-ietf-rmcat- Time Media over Wireless Networks", draft-ietf-rmcat-
wireless-tests-01 (work in progress), November 2015. wireless-tests-02 (work in progress), May 2016.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model]
Zhu, X., Cruz, S., and Z. Sarker, "Modeling Video Traffic Zhu, X., Cruz, S., and Z. Sarker, "Modeling Video Traffic
Sources for RMCAT Evaluations", draft-ietf-rmcat-video- Sources for RMCAT Evaluations", draft-ietf-rmcat-video-
traffic-model-00 (work in progress), January 2016. traffic-model-01 (work in progress), July 2016.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion [RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009, Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements]
Jesup, R. and Z. Sarker, "Congestion Control Requirements Jesup, R. and Z. Sarker, "Congestion Control Requirements
for Interactive Real-Time Media", draft-ietf-rmcat-cc- for Interactive Real-Time Media", draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
23 lines changed or deleted 17 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/