[e2e] TFRC vs UDP

[David P. Reed]

Lots of continuous media apps use RTP, not raw UDP.   Perhaps that's 
only a clarification to your question, but do note that RTP adds 
overhead too (if nothing but a packet header).

In general, I think, people adopt standards because of two factors:
1) enhanced interoperability ...
2) not having to invent the wheel yet another time, when somebody has 
done a "good enough" answer, and might even have started a community of 
people to improve it.


Syed Faisal Hasan wrote:

>
> To whom it may concern,
>
> TFRC was designed for use by the Continuous Media (CM) applications. 
> But why will a CM application which is performing well using UDP, use 
> TFRC if there is performance gap (more latency, less number of packets 
> transmitted in the same time, high rate fluctuations in the beginning) 
> betwen UDP and TFRC ? May be thats the reason we haven't seen any 
> applicatons using TFRC. On the other hand there is no (I haven't 
> found) research which analyzes the performance difference between UDP 
> and TFRC. It is clear that TFRC will not perform exactly like UDP ( 
> due to TFRC's friendliness with TCP), but how much can we expect from 
> TFRC?
>
> Faisal
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's 
> FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
>