Netalyzr is great for network geeks, hardly consumer-friendly, and even so the "network buffer measurements" part is buried in 150 other statistics. Why couldn't Ookla* add a simultaneous "ping" test to their throughput test? When was the last time someone leaned on them?
*I realize not everyone likes the Ookla tool, but it is popular and about as "sexy" as you are going to get with a network performance tool. -Greg On 3/19/15, 2:29 PM, "dpr...@reed.com" <dpr...@reed.com> wrote: >I do think engineers operating networks get it, and that Comcast's >engineers really get it, as I clarified in my followup note. > >The issue is indeed prioritization of investment, engineering resources >and management attention. The teams at Comcast in the engineering side >have been the leaders in "bufferbloat minimizing" work, and I think they >should get more recognition for that. > >I disagree a little bit about not having a test that shows the issue, and >the value the test would have in demonstrating the issue to users. >Netalyzer has been doing an amazing job on this since before the >bufferbloat term was invented. Every time I've talked about this issue >I've suggested running Netalyzer, so I have a personal set of comments >from people all over the world who run Netalyzer on their home networks, >on hotel networks, etc. > >When I have brought up these measurements from Netalyzr (which are not >aimed at showing the problem as users experience) I observe an >interesting reaction from many industry insiders: the results are not >"sexy enough for stupid users" and also "no one will care". > >I think the reaction characterizes the problem correctly - but the second >part is the most serious objection. People don't need a measurement >tool, they need to know that this is why their home network sucks >sometimes. > > > > > >On Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:58pm, "Livingood, Jason" ><jason_living...@cable.comcast.com> said: > >> On 3/19/15, 1:11 PM, "Dave Taht" <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:53 AM, <dpr...@reed.com> wrote: >>>> How many years has it been since Comcast said they were going to fix >>>>bufferbloat in their network within a year? >> >> I¹m not sure anyone ever said it¹d take a year. If someone did (even if >> it >> was me) then it was in the days when the problem appeared less >>complicated >> than it is and I apologize for that. Let¹s face it - the problem is >> complex and the software that has to be fixed is everywhere. As I said >> about IPv6: if it were easy, it¹d be done by now. ;-) >> >>>>It's almost as if the cable companies don't want OTT video or >>>>simultaneous FTP and interactive gaming to work. Of course not. They'd >>>>never do that. >> >> Sorry, but that seems a bit unfair. It flies in the face of what we have >> done and are doing. We¹ve underwritten some of Dave¹s work, we got >> CableLabs to underwrite AQM work, and I personally pushed like heck to >>get >> AQM built into the default D3.1 spec (had CTO-level awareness & support, >> and was due to Greg White¹s work at CableLabs). We are starting to field >> test D3.1 gear now, by the way. We made some bad bets too, such as >>trying >> to underwrite an OpenWRT-related program with ISC, but not every tactic >> will always be a winner. >> >> As for existing D3.0 gear, it¹s not for lack of trying. Has any DOCSIS >> network of any scale in the world solved it? If so, I have something to >> use to learn from and apply here at Comcast - and I¹d **love** an >> introduction to someone who has so I can get this info. >> >> But usually there are rational explanations for why something is still >>not >> done. One of them is that the at-scale operational issues are more >> complicated that some people realize. And there is always a case of >> prioritization - meaning things like running out of IPv4 addresses and >>not >> having service trump more subtle things like buffer bloat (and the >>effort >> to get vendors to support v6 has been tremendous). >> >>>I do understand there are strong forces against us, especially in the >>>USA. >> >> I¹m not sure there are any forces against this issue. It¹s more a >> question >> of awareness - it is not apparent it is more urgent than other work in >> everyone¹s backlog. For example, the number of ISP customers even aware >>of >> buffer bloat is probably 0.001%; if customers aren¹t asking for it, the >> product managers have a tough time arguing to prioritize buffer bloat >>work >> over new feature X or Y. >> >> One suggestion I have made to increase awareness is that there be a >>nice, >> web-based, consumer-friendly latency under load / bloat test that you >> could get people to run as they do speed tests today. (If someone thinks >> they can actually deliver this, I will try to fund it - ping me >>off-list.) >> I also think a better job can be done explaining buffer bloat - it¹s >>hard >> to make an Œelevator pitch¹ about it. >> >> It reminds me a bit of IPv6 several years ago. Rather than saying in >> essence Œyou operators are dummies¹ for not already fixing this, maybe >> assume the engineers all Œget it¹ and what to do it. Because we really >> do >> get it and want to do something about it. Then ask those operators what >> they need to convince their leadership and their suppliers and product >> managers and whomever else that it needs to be resourced more >>effectively >> (see above for example). >> >> We¹re at least part of the way there in DOCSIS networks. It is in D3.1 >>by >> default, and we¹re starting trials now. And probably within 18-24 months >> we won¹t buy any DOCSIS CPE that is not 3.1. >> >> The question for me is how and when to address it in DOCSIS 3.0. >> >> - Jason >> >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Bloat mailing list >Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net >https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat