Figure 17 illustrates starlinks latency reduction effort pretty well.
I guess folks on this list already know, but still this implies that there
might have been two stages in latency reduction so far (or I might be massively
overinterpret the plotted curve ;) )
Regards & Thanks Jason &
Thanks:
> On 24. May 2024, at 13:41, Frantisek Borsik via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> https://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/NFR5150_NetForecast-ISP-Performance-Report-2024.pdf
Not sure what to make out of this though:
"The chart for download latency among Germany's leading ISPs reveals
Hi Jason,
It is not just l4s, nqb and udp options are similarly flawed process-wise... so
this is not about me being in the rough.
It is rather determination of consensus, however rough, seems under more or
less sole power of the chairs (like in a court, but without a jury) and chairs
are not
Hi Jason
let me apologise for the harsh tone. I should have been able to phrase my point
way politer, but clearly failed.
I am sure your testing matrix was large enough already and tested those
conditions you considered most urgent for your use-cases.
I understand that I am free to test what
> On 22. May 2024, at 17:59, Stephen Hemminger via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2024 06:16:17 -0700
> Kenneth Porter via Bloat wrote:
>
>> This technical paper on Starlink by the chief scientist at APNIC crossed my
>> feed this week. [I thought I'd share it to the Starlink list here
Hi Jason,
> On 22. May 2024, at 14:48, Livingood, Jason
> wrote:
>
> > in the IETF the gap between the 'no politics' motto There have always been
> > politics at the IETF and in every other SDO, open source project, etc. – it
> > is human nature IMO.
[SM] I agree, but most other
Hi Jason
> On 22. May 2024, at 14:27, Livingood, Jason
> wrote:
>
> [SM] Here is Pete's data showing that, the middle two bars show what happens
> when the bottleneck is not treating TCP Prague to the expected signalling...
> That is not really fit for use over the open internet...
>
> [JL]
Mmmh,
> On 26. Feb 2024, at 10:24, Erik Auerswald via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 06:34:47PM -0500, Rich Brown via Bloat wrote:
>> [...]
>> Then they plug the new router's WAN port into their ISP modem's port,
>> connect their laptop's Ethernet to the LAN port, point
Hi David,
> On 25. Feb 2024, at 23:57, David Lang via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Rich Brown via Bloat wrote:
>
>> Am I right to despair? Are there no routers out there that we can recommend
>> in good faith that are easy to install, powerful enough (for SQM) at
>> ordinary
Mmmh,
maybe regroup and refocus and look for a relative simple wired-only variant,
then e.g. the naonopi 4RS might do, 2 ethernet ports, comes with an optional
case (not sure whether it is pre assembled) enough oomp to SQM at 300 Mbps (as
far as I heard, I have not tested that myself
Hi Dave,
> On Jan 11, 2024, at 14:53, Dave Taht via Rpm
> wrote:
>
> This was quite excellent, and did go into a delay based controller a bit.
>
> https://www.meetecho.com/blog/bwe-janus/
Yes, excellent article. I noted that the GCC draft contained this
though:
The loss-based
draft I fully accept that ship has sailed and "bigger is better" it is ;)
Regards
Sebastian
> David
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 1:53 PM Sebastian Moeller via Bloat
> wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> On 8 January 2024 22:04:23 CET, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 8 January 2024 22:04:23 CET, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> (h++ps://github.com/network-quality/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness).
>
>There's quite a few good ideas in this draft, but the one that I find
>intriguing is reporting RTT values in RPM (units of 1/60 Hz) rather than
Just a quick shoutout to Will Hawkins goresponsiveness effort
(h++ps://github.com/network-quality/goresponsiveness: open source go
implementation along the lines of the RPM IETF responsiveness draft
(h++ps://github.com/network-quality/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness).
The goal I think is a
What I am missing in this and similar papres are tests what happens if the
proposed scheme is actually used quantitatively over the internet...
The inherent idea seems to be if one would know the available capacity one
could 'jump' the cwnd immediately to that window... (ignoring the fact the
Hi Frantisek,
> On Dec 11, 2023, at 20:33, Frantisek Borsik
> wrote:
>
> Hello Sebastian,
>
> So you have shared that "L$S bible" :-)
I even have some sympathy for his stance, by all means, flow rate
fairness is rarely optimal and with sufficient information it seems almost
Hi Frantisek,
still keeping NNagain off-list, no need to infect yet another list with my L4S
aversion ;)
> On Dec 11, 2023, at 11:18, Frantisek Borsik
> wrote:
>
> …and I’m adding NN again, because:
>
> No matter which evil end game is actually the one, it will create a quite a
> havoc.
Hi Frantisek,
steering this to the bloat list, as I have a hunch my response might not be
appropriate for the wide audience in NNagain even though this can have NN
ramifications.
> On Dec 11, 2023, at 10:50, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain
> wrote:
>
> Top story on HN:
>
>
...it seems the evenroute closed shop, see:
https://evenroute.com
they were IMHO a trail blazer in turning what we learned about bloat and how to
ameliorate into a product that one could recommend one's not tech-affine family
members in good conscience.
But even in this state they still seem
Hi Rich,
> On Oct 17, 2023, at 14:39, Rich Brown via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> I stayed in an Airbnb rental last week. It was nicely appointed with a very
> gracious host who lived in the other half of the home. They had decent
> internet from xfinity - I was getting 20mbps/5mpbs.
>
> But.. they
Hi Dave,
> On Oct 14, 2023, at 21:46, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> thank you! A packet capture, however, would be more revealing...
will try to get a packet capture later, when the rest of the users are a
sleep...
But I want to re-iterate 12.7 is not a recent macos version by any account, so
the
Hi Dave,
> On Oct 14, 2023, at 21:01, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> netstat -I en0 -qq
Here is a bit of output from macosx monterey 12.7 (on intel hardware). I know
this is not really recent, ut it is the most recent I have available...
This is on an realtek based USB3 ethernet dongle that used to
Hi Mark,
> On Oct 11, 2023, at 21:05, Mark Thurston wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 18:04:41 +0100 Dave Taht wrote ---
>> Anyone got a ps4 or ps5 and can take a packet capture at their router?
>> Dying to know if it is cubic or bbr in particular
>>
>
> Sorry if this is a silly comment
On 5 October 2023 21:53:55 CEST, Michael Richardson wrote:
>Sebastian Moeller via Bloat wrote:
>> Now finally, a use case that needs at least a ~100Mbps link... question
>> is, how much better than the competitors streaming this is going to
>> look?
>
Now finally, a use case that needs at least a ~100Mbps link... question is, how
much better than the competitors streaming this is going to look?
On 5 October 2023 19:04:37 CEST, Dave Taht via Bloat
wrote:
Hi Dave,
I really like this argument by John Nagle. It is IMHO complementary (and
stronger) to what keep arguing, that far queueing is not most optimal but least
pessimal (and close to the best an intermediary node can do with the limited
information at hand, anything else needs additional
Hi Mike,
[I took the liberty to remove some individual address from the Cc, as I assume
most/all already be covered by the lists]
> On Sep 30, 2023, at 16:41, Mike Conlow wrote:
>
> First, a thank you to Dave, and lots of you all, for longtime shepherding of
> this community and efforts to
Hi Jan,
> On Sep 30, 2023, at 16:28, Jan Ceuleers via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> On 30/09/2023 14:19, Sebastian Moeller via Bloat wrote:
>>
>> P.S.: Of course if we look close enough we surely can find corner-cases
>> where either the EU regulations or the transl
So, let me start wit a big caveat:
I am just an internet end-user and have no insight into the ISP side of things.
Nor am I a lawyer and hence might moss some of the subtleties of the regulation
and their translation into law in each member state.
> On Sep 30, 2023, at 14:42, Vint Cerf wrote:
Hi Frantisek,
> On Sep 30, 2023, at 14:00, Frantisek Borsik via Rpm
> wrote:
>
> Back then in 2015, when NN was enacted by Wheeler & CO, there was a great
> body of work (IMHO) done on this subject by Martin Geddes:
> https://www.martingeddes.com/1261-2/
>
> But let's pick one report written
Hi Gert,
> On Sep 29, 2023, at 08:31, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 08:24:13AM +0200, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink
> wrote:
>> [SM] In the EU we have this as a continuous lobbying effort by big
>> incumbent ISPs (a move to have the large content providers
Hi David,
> On Sep 29, 2023, at 00:19, David Lang via Rpm
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, Livingood, Jason via Bloat wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 20:48:58 +
>> From: "Livingood, Jason via Bloat"
>> Reply-To: "Livingood, Jason"
>> To: dan , Dave Taht
>> Cc: Rpm ,
>>Dave
Hi Jason,
thanks for giving some perspective.
> On Sep 28, 2023, at 19:10, Livingood, Jason
> wrote:
>
> On 9/28/23, 02:25, "Bloat on behalf of Sebastian Moeller via Bloat"
> <mailto:bloat-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
> bloat@l
> On Sep 28, 2023, at 18:38, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:25 PM Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> please excuse a number of tangents below ;)
>
> It would be nice, if as a (dis)organisation... the bufferbloat team
> could focus on somehow getting both sides
Hi Gert,
> On Sep 28, 2023, at 09:33, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 09:14:27AM +0200, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>> [SM] Has Vodafone started using IPv6 for their DSL-users yet*? About
>> the content that is an interesting question, I will try to measure in my
Hi Gert,
> On Sep 28, 2023, at 08:36, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 08:25:31AM +0200, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink
> wrote:
>> ***) Strictly speaking IPv6 is required, since "internet access"
>> is defined as reaching all of the internet (as far as in the ISPs
>>
Hi Dave,
please excuse a number of tangents below ;)
> On Sep 27, 2023, at 20:21, Dave Taht via Rpm
> wrote:
>
> Jason just did a beautiful thread as to what was the original source
> of the network neutrality
> bittorrent vs voip bufferbloat blowup.
>
>
Hi Jonathan
On 4 September 2023 00:36:03 CEST, Jonathan Morton
wrote:
>> On 3 Sep, 2023, at 9:54 pm, Sebastian Moeller via Ecn-sane
>> wrote:
>>
>> B) Excessive ECT(1) marking (this happened with a multi-GB download)
>
>This *could* be a badly configured middlebox attempting to apply a DSCP,
Dear ECN experts,
I want to report some oddities I encounter with downloading data on steam's
network. (My kids started playing steam games recently, so my network started
to see steam loads). Some games apparently need routine updates every few weeks
in the multi GB range which on the one
Hi Jonathan, hi Erik,
that was helpful, thanks!
I now played around with tcpdump a bit an apparently:
tcpdump -i pppoe-wan -v -n 'tcp[tcpflags] & (tcp-ece|tcp-cwr) != 0' # TCP ECN
flags, ECN in action
will allow me to quickly see whether I get ECE or CWR flags in my traffic, so I
will use
Hi Jonathan,
much appreciated!
> On Aug 26, 2023, at 14:06, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
>> On 26 Aug, 2023, at 2:48 pm, Sebastian Moeller via Ecn-sane
>> wrote:
>>
>> percentage of packets marked: 100 * (2346329 / 3259777) = 72%
>>
>> This seems like too high a marking rate to me. I would
Dear ECN-experts,
I have a quick question, when running downloads, say x flows (with MTU ~1500),
over a Y Mbps link with Zms RTT, what kind of CE rate do I need to expect?
I ask, because the kids started to play some games on steam, and when these do
their multi-GB updates I accumulate quite a
Hi Roland.
> On Aug 7, 2023, at 10:48, Bless, Roland (TM) via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 01.08.23 at 00:36 Dave Taht via Bloat wrote:
>> Promising approach:
>> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10188775
>
> It's a pity that neither the authors nor the reviewers were aware of
Hi Michael,
that "teaser" you wrote is certainly interesting. Would you be able to
distribute author copies to those of us that do not subscribe to IEEExplore,
please?
Regards
Sebastian
> On Aug 1, 2023, at 09:32, Michael Menth via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> we've recently
For what it is worth, the tsv working group is considering whether to process
mp-dccp on the standards track, but then the IETF seems not to care too deeply
about open-source licence compliance. Or recent kernel implementations or
implementations that have a realistic path towards mainline
While I have no test that I can volunteer, let alone a test that supports L4S.
I want to take the opportunity to share my tcpdump invocations that can show
ECN in action on the IP-level:
# ECN: IPv4
tcpdump -i pppoe-wan -v -n 'ip and (ip[1] & 0x3) != 0' # NOT Not-ECT
tcpdump -i pppoe-wan -v -n
Hi Jonathan,
> On Jun 25, 2023, at 01:04, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
>> On 25 Jun, 2023, at 12:00 am, Sebastian Moeller via Cake
>> wrote:
>>
>> Is dropbox silently already using an L4S-style CC for their TCP?
>
> It should be possible to distinguish this by looking at the three-way
>
Dear All,
I started to look at ECN action on my homelink and I do see the expected ECT(0)
and CE marks (mostly under Linix, macos, inspite of what sysctl seems to imply
does not use ECN for me any more). BUt I also see the following ECT(1) marked
traffic roughly every 5 seconds:
Hi Aaron,
> On Jun 3, 2023, at 20:04, Aaron Wood via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> I’ve found that _usually_ I can set cake’s bandwidth limits to 90-95% of the
> advertised bandwidth, and everything “just works”. So long as you’re
> routinely able to achieve the bandwidth, it tends to work.
>
> I’ve
Hi John,
> On Jun 3, 2023, at 19:17, John D via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the detail. It makes sense but it kind of feels like in some
> (maybe many) cases the router could know the internet link performance.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they do not, and sometimes the number the
Have a look at:
cake-autorate:
https://github.com/lynxthecat/cake-autorate/blob/master/cake-autorate.sh
lua sqm-autorate: https://github.com/sqm-autorate/sqm-autorate
perl sqm-autorate: https://github.com/tievolu/sqm-autorate
all three use active latency probes to detect an increase in delay
Hmmm
On 23 May 2023 23:05:05 CEST, Dave Taht via Bloat
wrote:
>from: https://www.ietf.org/blog/banishing-bufferbloat/
>
>"Therefore, innovations like L4S and FQ-CoDel complement each other
>and should be deployed together."
The article is quite positive in its framing which suits its
Hi Bob,
funny, that is a feature we wanted recently for cake-autorate (not for the
controller but for hypothesis testing of what funny things might happen over
LTE). Our "poor man's" version was ICMP echo requests against 8.8.8.8 as google
accepts large echo requests, but only sends
Also this:
https://blog.cloudflare.com/aim-database-for-internet-quality/
A pretty decent article explaining the issue in a very accessible way.
Nitpicks (in case David Tuber is on this list):
A) jitter is important for gaming (if only as it affects the necessary added
delay for de-jitter
Hi Dave,
> On Apr 14, 2023, at 06:04, Dave Taht via Cerowrt-devel
> wrote:
>
> The biggest bug with the early fq_codel deployment was that it dropped
> from head and fq'd which led to the prospect of messages sent out of
> order on the can protocol, which was not designed for that..
Hi Dave,
> On Apr 10, 2023, at 01:04, David Lang via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> TCP ramps up it's speed fairly slowly, and backs off fairly drastically when
> it is told (via ECN or a dropped packet) that it has hit the limit.
[SM] That is the prevailing narrative, yes. However during slow
Hi Dave,
edited down to a single point
> On Mar 29, 2023, at 16:57, Dave Taht wrote:
> [...]
> Fiber is great for long distances, it is great in high density
> environments, and it is also great within a datacenter or internet
> exchange point. As for to the home, I'm still of two minds
Hi Jeremy,
> On Mar 29, 2023, at 18:53, Jeremy Austin via Starlink
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 6:54 AM dan via LibreQoS
> wrote:
> The obvious solution is to foster competition. Anywhere you overlay cable
> companies with fiber BOTH companies remain and compete against each
...
>> cis471.blogspot.com
>> -
>> From: Starlink on behalf of
>> Sebastian Moeller via Starlink
>> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 2:11 PM
>> To: David Lang
>> Cc: dan ; Frantisek Borsik
>> ; libreqos
>> ; Dave Taht via
Hi David,
> On Mar 26, 2023, at 22:57, David Lang wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023, Sebastian Moeller via Bloat wrote:
>
>>> The point of the thread is that we still do not treat digital
>>> communications infrastructure as life support critical.
>&
Hi Bob,
> On Mar 25, 2023, at 21:43, rjmcmahon wrote:
>
> It's not just one phone call. I've been figuring this out for about two years
> now. I've been working with some strategic people in Boston, colos & dark
> fiber providers, and professional installers that wired up many of the Boston
Hi Bob,
somewhat sad. Have you considered that your described requirements and the
use-case might be outside of the mass-market envelope for which the big ISPs
taylor/rig their processes? Maybe, not sure that is an option, if you approach
this as a "business"* asking for a fiber uplink for an
Just started to look at domos whitepaper for quality attenuation:
"Typically, a traffic stream of randomly-sized packets with an overall rate of
16kbps is sufficient to measure the ∆Q along a network path."
Let's see how applicable this is on a metered link:
(16*1000/8)*(60*60*24)/(1024^2) =
Hi Dan,
> On Mar 21, 2023, at 18:22, dan wrote:
>
> GPON is TDMA so the latency is going to be at a minimum the RTT * connected
> ONUs, vs DSL which is a fixed ratio/scheduler.
Assuming no proactive grants... are these a thing in PON or only in
DOCSIS?, but since GPON frames can
ers via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> On 21/03/2023 13:31, Sebastian Moeller via Bloat wrote:
> (...)
>> Noki's proprietary (aka not ITU) @% Gbps PON seems to be abbreviated
>> 25GS-PON.
>
> 25GSPON is in fact not proprietary. It was standardised by means of an
> MSA
I have to push back gently on this...
XG(S)-PON is gross 10Gbps (after FEC you are left with around 8,6 Gbps), Noki's
proprietary (aka not ITU) @% Gbps PON seems to be abbreviated 25GS-PON.
Now XGS-PON allows maximally 128 end-nodes in the tree, so:
8600/128 = 67.18 Mbps/subscriber
unless the
Hi Brandon,
> On Mar 21, 2023, at 01:10, Brandon Butterworth via Rpm
> wrote:
>
> On Mon Mar 20, 2023 at 03:28:57PM -0600, dan via Starlink wrote:
>> I more or less agree with you Frantisek. There are throughput numbers
>> that are need for current gen and next gen services, but those are
So over here in Germany we already have something similar.
ISPs are required by law and regulation to supply potential customers with the
following standardized information before closing a contract:
example "Product information sheet"
Hi Dave,
> On Mar 17, 2023, at 17:38, Dave Taht via Starlink
> wrote:
>
> This is a pretty neat box:
>
> https://mikrotik.com/product/netpower_lite_7r
>
> What are the compelling arguments for fiber vs copper, again?
As far as I can tell:
Copper:
can carry electric power
Hi Bob,
I like your design sketch and the ideas behind it.
> On Mar 15, 2023, at 18:32, rjmcmahon via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> The 6G is a contiguous 1200MhZ. It has low power indoor (LPI) and very low
> power (VLP) modes. The pluggable transceiver could be color coded to a
> chanspec, then the
Hi Bob,
technically attractive, but the "charge per radio head" and :virtualize the AP"
are show stoppers for me... I like my ISP, but I have a clear understanding
that my ISPs goals and my goals are not perfectly aligned so I would never give
them control of my in house network and even less
Hi Dan,
> On Mar 13, 2023, at 22:27, dan wrote:
>
> I’m sticking to my guns on this, but am prepared to let this particular
> argument rest. The threads is approaching unreadable.
[SM] Sorry I have a tendency of simultaneously pushing multiple
discussion threads instead of
Hi Jeremy,
> On Mar 13, 2023, at 20:52, Jeremy Austin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:34 PM dan wrote:
>
> See, you're coming around. Cake is autorating (or very close, 'on
> device') at the wan port. not the speed test device or software. And
> the accurate data is collected
Hi Dan,
> On Mar 13, 2023, at 20:33, dan wrote:
>
>>
>>I respectfully disagree, if say, my modem had a 4 GB queue I could
>> theoretically burst ~4GB worth of data at line rate into that buffer without
>> learning anything about the the modem-link capacity.
>
> so this is where
Hi Bob,
> On Mar 13, 2023, at 20:32, rjmcmahon wrote:
>
> On 2023-03-13 11:51, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>> Hi Bob,
>>> On Mar 13, 2023, at 19:42, rjmcmahon wrote:
[SM] not really, given enough capacity, typical streaming protocols
will actually not hit the ceiling, at least the
Hi Bob,
> On Mar 13, 2023, at 19:42, rjmcmahon wrote:
>
>> [SM] not really, given enough capacity, typical streaming protocols
>> will actually not hit the ceiling, at least the one's I look at every
>> now and then tend to stay well below actual capacity of the link.
> I think DASH type
Hi Dave,
> On Mar 13, 2023, at 19:22, Dave Collier-Brown via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 3:02 AM Sebastian Moeller via Starlink
> wrote:
>
>>[SM] OK, I will bite, how do you measure achievable throughput without
>> actually generating it? Packet-pair techniques are
Hi Jeremy,
> On Mar 13, 2023, at 18:37, Jeremy Austin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:26 AM dan wrote:
>
>
> If you troubleshoot your ISP based on speed tests you will be chasing
> your tail. Meanwhile, that internet facing interface can see the true
> numbers the entire time.
Hi Dan,
> On Mar 13, 2023, at 18:26, dan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:36 AM Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2023, at 17:12, dan wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> High water mark on their router.
>>
>>[SM] Nope, my router is connected to my (bridged)
Hi Dan,
> On Mar 13, 2023, at 17:12, dan wrote:
>
> " [SM] For a home link that means you need to measure on the router,
> as end-hosts will only ever see the fraction of traffic they
> sink/source themselves..."
> &
> [SM] OK, I will bite, how do you measure achievable throughput
> without
Hi Dave,
> On Mar 13, 2023, at 17:06, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 8:50 AM Sebastian Moeller via Bloat
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jeremy,
>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2023, at 16:08, Jeremy Austin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
> On Mar 13, 2023, at 17:04, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 8:08 AM Jeremy Austin via Rpm
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 3:02 AM Sebastian Moeller via Starlink
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dan,
>>>
>>>
On Jan 9, 2023, at 20:56, dan via Rpm wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
> On Mar 13, 2023, at 16:08, Jeremy Austin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 3:02 AM Sebastian Moeller via Starlink
> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 2023, at 20:56, dan via Rpm wrote:
> >
> > You don't need to generate the traffic on a link to measure how
> > much
Hi Dan,
> On Jan 9, 2023, at 20:56, dan via Rpm wrote:
>
> I'm not offering a complete solution here I'm not so keen on
> speed tests. It's akin to testing your car's performance by flooring
> it til you hit the governor and hard breaking til you stop *while in
> traffic*. That doesn't
Hi Bob,
> On Mar 12, 2023, at 22:02, rjmcmahon wrote:
>
> iperf 2 uses responses per second and also provides the bounce back times as
> well as one way delays.
>
> The hypothesis is that network engineers have to fix KPI issues, including
> latency, ahead of shipping products.
>
> Asking
Dave,
your presentation was awesome, I fully agree with you ;). I very much liked
your practical funnel demonstration which was boiled down to the bare minimum
(I only partly asked myself, will the liquid spill in in your laptops keyboard,
and if so is it water-proof, but you clearly had
Hi All,
We are getting there...
'The average latency of all tests performed in the tile, represented in
milliseconds'
This is infinitely better than no under-load numbers. However, the latency
distribution is neither 'normal'* nor fully symmetric (it can not, there is a
hard minimum, the
Hi,
On 8 February 2023 17:13:26 CET, Dave Taht via Bloat
wrote:
>I do find it odd that the carriers deprioritized home users
I would not be amazed if the priority would inversely correlate with expected
profit for mobile vs fwa customers and maybe with the availability of
competitive
Hi RR
On 12 January 2023 22:57:32 CET, Dick Roy wrote:
>FYI .
>
>
>
>https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/cbrs-based-fwa-beats-starlink-performanc
>e-madden
>
[SM] He is so close:
'Speed tests don’t tell us much about the capacity of the network, or the
reliability of the network, or the true
Hi RR,
Thanks for the detailed response below, since my point is somewhat orthogonal I
opted for top-posting.
Let me take a step back here and rephrase, synchronising clocks within an
acceptable range to be useful is not rocket science nor witchcraft. For
measuring internet traffic
Hi RR,
> On Jan 11, 2023, at 22:46, Dick Roy wrote:
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
> Sebastian Moeller via Starlink
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 12:01 PM
> To: Rodney W. Grimes
> Cc: Dave Taht via
Hi Bob,
> On Jan 11, 2023, at 21:09, rjmcmahon wrote:
>
> Iperf 2 is designed to measure network i/o. Note: It doesn't have to move
> large amounts of data. It can support data profiles that don't drive TCP's
> CCA as an example.
>
> Two things I've been asked for and avoided:
>
> 1)
Hi Rodney,
> On Jan 11, 2023, at 19:32, Rodney W. Grimes
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Yall can call me crazy if you want.. but... see below [RWG]
>> Hi Bib,
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 9, 2023, at 20:13, rjmcmahon via Starlink
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> My biggest barrier is the lack of clock sync by
Hi Bib,
> On Jan 9, 2023, at 20:13, rjmcmahon via Starlink
> wrote:
>
> My biggest barrier is the lack of clock sync by the devices, i.e. very
> limited support for PTP in data centers and in end devices. This limits the
> ability to measure one way delays (OWD) and most assume that OWD is
Hi Dave,
just a data point, apples networkQuality on Monterey (12.6.2, x86) defaults to
bi-directionally saturating traffic. Your argument about the duration still
holds though the test is really short. While I understand the motivation behind
that, I think it would to the internet much
Hi RR,
> On Jan 6, 2023, at 01:30, Dick Roy wrote:
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
> Sebastian Moeller via Starlink
> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 3:12 AM
> To: rjmcmahon
> Cc: Dave Taht via Starlink; IETF
Hi Bob,
> On Jan 4, 2023, at 21:02, rjmcmahon via Bloat
> wrote:
>
> Curious to why people keep calling capacity tests speed tests? A semi at 55
> mph isn't faster than a porsche at 141 mph because its load volume is larger.
[SM] I am not sure whether answering the "why" is likely
Mail mail provider unhelpfully labelled my post as SPAM, and apparently all
receivers rejected to receive my "SPAM"
Hence I try forwarding a slightly edited version of my response below, hoping
not to trigger GMX's SPAM detection again.
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Sebastian Moeller
Hi Bob,
What simple end users would need is (semi-)public iperf2 servers accessible
over the internet to be comparably easy to use as iperf3
Regards
Sebastian
On 6 December 2022 18:46:18 CET, rjmcmahon via Make-wifi-fast
wrote:
>Nice write up and work over the years.
>
>On
Hi Robert,
This is surprisingly rich in useful information and quite lean on marketing
(given that this is marketing material having easily accessible links to source
material is unusually open*). Nice.
Regards
Sebastian
*) Personally that approach would likely reel me in as
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
