Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Handling of Application Pacing #18

Open
TimEvens opened this issue Dec 8, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

Handling of Application Pacing #18

TimEvens opened this issue Dec 8, 2022 · 0 comments

Comments

@TimEvens
Copy link

TimEvens commented Dec 8, 2022

As stated in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9002#name-pacing, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9221#name-congestion-control, and in other implementations... application packet pacing is important for subscribers/receivers.

If the same media stream is split between reliable and unreliable (I vs P), there are likely situations that will cause the reliable data to run slower than the unreliable. This can introduce additional jitter and/or result in the receiver dropping frames due to the slower transmission of reliable vs unreliable (same media flow). Coalescing these or introducing some level of additional pacing/CC to the unreliable data could help.

Multipath has the same challenge in that pacing will be lost between paths/connections.

Messages buffered, cached, ... and then replayed later would not preserve application pacing unless pacing rates were encoded in the stream. Maybe start point or start of stream should have pacing inter-packet-delay value. This value would only be used for egress transmissions to subscribers. Relay to relays could still transmit at their own rates, fast as possible.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant