What you mention is for media streaming, and the wifi problem is primarily burst loss. Correcting that is expensive, whether its done at l2 or higher layer. Our signaling protocols can easily be fixed to live with even higher loss at lower cost. Thats why i am suggesting to separate solution space between signalling and media.
Sent from my Samsung Captivate Glide on AT&T Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Pat (Patricia) Thaler wrote: > Without guidance on how good the multicast packet loss rate should be, > it is difficult to define the best solution . I'd say most applications people actually use start behaving very badly around 0.1 - 1% packet loss. VoIP MOS goes down, TCP starts to really get affected etc. I'd imagine most people I interact with that design protocols design protocols have in their mind that the packet loss rate is around this level, not higher. So for me, the "contract" that 802.11 needs to fulfil for the IETF not to start looking into changing IP for 802.11, is for 802.11 networks to deliver broadcast and multicast packets with around 0.1% packet loss (or less) as a design goal for normal operations. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
