Dear CJ,stepping in for Sebastian, who has earned a break after finishing his thesis.
https://interop.cs7.tf.fau.de/thesis.pdf
No, we have not discussed results with any author, simply because the number of implementations is too high to understand each implementation in detail. I added Christian Huitema in Cc, maybe he wants to comment on this one.Sec. IV,D, 5: Interesting to know "picoquic" does speculative retransmission. As you argue, this may not always help. Did you confirm with the author
Yes, but as mentioned in the paper, we are not sure about the CC of each and every implementation.The results show loss-based CC does not perform well compared to BBR
Good question, we don't know, should be noted as future work. Sebastian only has a very short section "Comparison with Results of Other Research" in his thesis. We assume that Docker does not have a big influence on the performance, but did not verify that. Also chrome not being part of the tests is unfortunate.Production software performs well more like picoquic or not? How big difference is between production vs these implementations in the test?
Yes, on the https://interop.cs7.tf.fau.de website select "Run: real_2021-11-15" and then "Plots for eutelsat (EUT)". We plan further runs in the future.Any Time-Offset graphs for EUTELSAT case?
Research overview page: additional column on emulated or real Sat link will be helpful
Actually that column already exists, 5th column from the right.Motivation for putting the overview on github was to allow pull requests, but visualization and markdown editing for such a large table is not optimal with github...
Thanks, Joerg
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
