Yup, all true. I got lots of things to rant about too. Now, Mr. ISP, you signed me up for 1Gbps service. You told me it would fix my performance problem. You bundled a kit with the Wi-Fi gateway (router). And you give me bad support if I provide my own router. So why should you have to know the stuff that Dave is telling me.
Yeah, and when I first complained about sub-300Mbps service on my 1Gbps service, after 3 months of helping the ISP support escalate the problem, they eventually reported “oh, we didn’t notice the OLT was overloaded”. Eh, don’t they have equipment monitoring and all that basic stuff. Then they reported it will take 6 months to get a new OLT shelf added. …. So lame. So sad. Deliberately incompetent because it saves them money. Gene ---------------------------------------------- Eugene Chang IEEE Senior Life Member [email protected] 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu) > On Sep 27, 2022, at 3:55 AM, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 11:36 PM Sebastian Moeller via Starlink > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > >> Worst, I waited 9 months for them to resolve why I was only getting 300Mbps >> on my 1Gbps service (oops, sorry my 700Mbps service). > > Nothing I've seen to date below $400 dollars can actually push a gbit > in both directions at the same time, with > NAT, firewalling, etc. A lot of gear can't even push a gbit in one direction. > > The long accepted fallacy that a gigabit "router", is just a gigabit > switch, bothers me, but it is just one piece of a long line of > orwellian doublethink about how the net works but is so pervasive we > ended up publishing: > > https://forum.openwrt.org/t/so-you-have-500mbps-1gbps-fiber-and-need-a-router-read-this-first/90305 > > <https://forum.openwrt.org/t/so-you-have-500mbps-1gbps-fiber-and-need-a-router-read-this-first/90305> > > I've seen an ostensibly serious proposal that budgeted about $4k/sub > for a symmetric gig fiber rollout that budgeted... > wait for it... $75 dollars for the router, and other proposals that > wanted to punt the firewalling etc to a more centralized server, and > just put a switch at the sub. > >> [SM] I guess mass market internet access is a low margin business, where >> expert debugging time is precious. I hope they at least gave you a rebate >> for that time. > > Why is it so few take packet captures anymore? (I think I will rant on > that at more length elsewhere) > >> >> Regards >> Sebastian >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Gene >>> ---------------------------------------------- >>> Eugene Chang >>> IEEE Senior Life Member >>> [email protected] >>> 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu) >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 26, 2022, at 11:29 AM, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi David, >>>> >>>>> On Sep 26, 2022, at 23:22, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022, Eugene Y Chang wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2022, at 11:01 AM, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Eugene, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2022, at 22:54, Eugene Y Chang via Starlink >>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok, we are getting into the details. I agree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Every node in the path has to implement this to be effective. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Amazingly the biggest bang for the buck is gotten by fixing those >>>>>>> nodes that actually contain a network path's bottleneck. Often these >>>>>>> are pretty stable. So yes for fully guaranteed service quality all >>>>>>> nodes would need to participate, but for improving things noticeably it >>>>>>> is sufficient to improve the usual bottlenecks, e.g. for many internet >>>>>>> access links the home gateway is a decent point to implement better >>>>>>> buffer management. (In short the problem are over-sized and >>>>>>> under-managed buffers, and one of the best solution is better/smarter >>>>>>> buffer management). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not completely true. Say the bottleneck is at node N. During the >>>>>> period of congestion, the upstream node N-1 will have to buffer. When >>>>>> node N recovers, the bufferbloat at N-1 will be blocking until the >>>>>> bufferbloat drains. Etc. etc. Making node N better will reduce the >>>>>> extent of the backup at N-1, but N-1 should implement the better code. >>>>> >>>>> only if node N and node N-1 handle the same traffic with the same link >>>>> speeds. In practice this is almost never the case. >>>> >>>> [SM] I note that typically for ingress shaping a post-true-bottleneck >>>> shaper will not work unless we create an artificial bottleneck by shaping >>>> the traffic to below true bottleneck (thereby creating a new true but >>>> artificial bottleneck so the queue develops at a point where we can >>>> control it). >>>> Also if the difference between "true structural" and artificial >>>> bottleneck is small in comparison to the traffic inrush we can see >>>> "traffic back-spill" into the typically oversized and under-managed >>>> upstream buffers, but for reasonably well behaved that happens relatively >>>> rarely. Rarely enough that ingress traffic shaping noticeably improves >>>> latency-under-load in spite of not beeing a guranteed solution. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Until you get to gigabit last-mile links, the last mile is almost always >>>>> the bottleneck from both sides, so implementing cake on the home router >>>>> makes a huge improvement (and if you can get it on the last-mile ISP >>>>> router, even better). Once you get into the Internet fabric, bottlenecks >>>>> are fairly rare, they do happen, but ISPs carefully watch for those and >>>>> add additional paths and/or increase bandwith to avoid them. >>>> >>>> [SM] Well, sometimes such links are congested too for economic >>>> reasons... >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Sebastian >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> David Lang >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In fact, every node in the path has to have the same prioritization or >>>>>>>> the scheme becomes ineffective. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes and no, one of the clearest winners has been flow queueing, IMHO >>>>>>> not because it is the most optimal capacity sharing scheme, but because >>>>>>> it is the least pessimal scheme, allowing all (or none) flows forward >>>>>>> progress. You can interpret that as a scheme in which flows below their >>>>>>> capacity share are prioritized, but I am not sure that is the best way >>>>>>> to look at these things. >>>>>> >>>>>> The hardest part is getting competing ISPs to implement and coordinate. >>>>>> Bufferbloat and handoff between ISPs will be hard. The only way to fix >>>>>> this is to get the unwashed public to care. Then they can say “we don’t >>>>>> care about the technical issues, just fix it.” Until then ….. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Sebastian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gene >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> Eugene Chang >>>>>>>> IEEE Senior Life Member >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2022, at 10:48 AM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> software updates can do far more than just improve recovery. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In practice, large data transfers are less sensitive to latency than >>>>>>>>> smaller data transfers (i.e. downloading a CD image vs a video >>>>>>>>> conference), software can ensure better fairness in preventing a bulk >>>>>>>>> transfer from hurting the more latency sensitive transfers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (the example below is not completely accurate, but I think it gets >>>>>>>>> the point across) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When buffers become excessivly large, you have the situation where a >>>>>>>>> video call is going to generate a small amount of data at a regular >>>>>>>>> interval, but a bulk data transfer is able to dump a huge amount of >>>>>>>>> data into the buffer instantly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you just do FIFO, then you get a small chunk of video call, then >>>>>>>>> several seconds worth of CD transfer, followed by the next small >>>>>>>>> chunk of the video call. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But the software can prevent the one app from hogging so much of the >>>>>>>>> connection and let the chunk of video call in sooner, avoiding the >>>>>>>>> impact to the real time traffic. Historically this has required the >>>>>>>>> admin classify all traffic and configure equipment to implement >>>>>>>>> different treatment based on the classification (and this requires >>>>>>>>> trust in the classification process), the bufferbloat team has >>>>>>>>> developed options (fq_codel and cake) that can ensure fairness >>>>>>>>> between applications/servers with little or no configuration, and no >>>>>>>>> trust in other systems to properly classify their traffic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The one thing that Cake needs to work really well is to be able to >>>>>>>>> know what the data rate available is. With Starlink, this changes >>>>>>>>> frequently and cake integrated into the starlink dish/router software >>>>>>>>> would be far better than anything that can be done externally as the >>>>>>>>> rate changes can be fed directly into the settings (currently they >>>>>>>>> are only indirectly detected) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David Lang >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022, Eugene Y Chang via Starlink wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You already know this. Bufferbloat is a symptom and not the cause. >>>>>>>>>> Bufferbloat grows when there are (1) periods of low or no bandwidth >>>>>>>>>> or (2) periods of insufficient bandwidth (aka network congestion). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If I understand this correctly, just a software update cannot make >>>>>>>>>> bufferbloat go away. It might improve the speed of recovery (e.g. >>>>>>>>>> throw away all time sensitive UDP messages). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gene >>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> Eugene Chang >>>>>>>>>> IEEE Senior Life Member >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2022, at 10:04 AM, Bruce Perens <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please help to explain. Here's a draft to start with: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Starlink Performance Not Sufficient for Military Applications, Say >>>>>>>>>>> Scientists >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The problem is not availability: Starlink works where nothing but >>>>>>>>>>> another satellite network would. It's not bandwidth, although >>>>>>>>>>> others have questions about sustaining bandwidth as the customer >>>>>>>>>>> base grows. It's latency and jitter. As load increases, latency, >>>>>>>>>>> the time it takes for a packet to get through, increases more than >>>>>>>>>>> it should. The scientists who have fought bufferbloat, a major >>>>>>>>>>> cause of latency on the internet, know why. SpaceX needs to upgrade >>>>>>>>>>> their system to use the scientist's Open Source modifications to >>>>>>>>>>> Linux to fight bufferbloat, and thus reduce latency. This is mostly >>>>>>>>>>> just using a newer version, but there are some tunable parameters. >>>>>>>>>>> Jitter is a change in the speed of getting a packet through the >>>>>>>>>>> network during a connection, which is inevitable in satellite >>>>>>>>>>> networks, but will be improved by making use of the >>>>>>>>>>> bufferbloat-fighting software, and probably with the addition of >>>>>>>>>>> more satellites. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We've done all of the work, SpaceX just needs to adopt it by >>>>>>>>>>> upgrading their software, said scientist Dave Taht. Jim Gettys, >>>>>>>>>>> Taht's collaborator and creator of the X Window System, chimed in: >>>>>>>>>>> <fill in here please> >>>>>>>>>>> Open Source luminary Bruce Perens said: sometimes Starlink's >>>>>>>>>>> latency and jitter make it inadequate to remote-control my ham >>>>>>>>>>> radio station. But the military is experimenting with >>>>>>>>>>> remote-control of vehicles on the battlefield and other >>>>>>>>>>> applications that can be demonstrated, but won't happen at scale >>>>>>>>>>> without adoption of bufferbloat-fighting strategies. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:59 PM Eugene Chang >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> The key issue is most people don’t understand why latency matters. >>>>>>>>>>> They don’t see it or feel it’s impact. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> First, we have to help people see the symptoms of latency and how >>>>>>>>>>> it impacts something they care about. >>>>>>>>>>> - gamers care but most people may think it is frivolous. >>>>>>>>>>> - musicians care but that is mostly for a hobby. >>>>>>>>>>> - business should care because of productivity but they don’t know >>>>>>>>>>> how to “see” the impact. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Second, there needs to be a “OMG, I have been seeing the action of >>>>>>>>>>> latency all this time and never knew it! I was being shafted.” Once >>>>>>>>>>> you have this awakening, you can get all the press you want for >>>>>>>>>>> free. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Most of the time when business apps are developed, “we” hide the >>>>>>>>>>> impact of poor performance (aka latency) or they hide from the >>>>>>>>>>> discussion because the developers don’t have a way to fix the >>>>>>>>>>> latency. Maybe businesses don’t care because any employees affected >>>>>>>>>>> are just considered poor performers. (In bad economic times, the >>>>>>>>>>> poor performers are just laid off.) For employees, if they happen >>>>>>>>>>> to be at a location with bad latency, they don’t know that latency >>>>>>>>>>> is hurting them. Unfair but most people don’t know the issue is >>>>>>>>>>> latency. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Talking and explaining why latency is bad is not as effective as >>>>>>>>>>> showing why latency is bad. Showing has to be with something that >>>>>>>>>>> has a person impact. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Gene >>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Eugene Chang >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> +1-781-799-0233 (in Honolulu) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2022, at 6:32 AM, Bruce Perens via Starlink >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to get attention, you can get it for free. I can place >>>>>>>>>>>> articles with various press if there is something interesting to >>>>>>>>>>>> say. Did this all through the evangelism of Open Source. All we >>>>>>>>>>>> need to do is write, sign, and publish a statement. What they >>>>>>>>>>>> actually write is less relevant if they publish a link to our >>>>>>>>>>>> statement. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Right now I am concerned that the Starlink latency and jitter is >>>>>>>>>>>> going to be a problem even for remote controlling my ham station. >>>>>>>>>>>> The US Military is interested in doing much more, which they have >>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated, but I don't see happening at scale without some >>>>>>>>>>>> technical work on the network. Being able to say this isn't ready >>>>>>>>>>>> for the government's application would be an attention-getter. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bruce >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 9:21 AM Dave Taht via Starlink >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> These days, if you want attention, you gotta buy it. A 50k half >>>>>>>>>>>> page >>>>>>>>>>>> ad in the wapo or NYT riffing off of It's the latency, Stupid!", >>>>>>>>>>>> signed by the kinds of luminaries we got for the fcc wifi fight, >>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>> go a long way towards shifting the tide. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 8:29 AM Dave Taht <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 8:20 AM Livingood, Jason >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The awareness & understanding of latency & impact on QoE is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nearly unknown among reporters. IMO maybe there should be some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of background briefings for reporters - maybe like a simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>> YouTube video explainer that is short & high level & visual? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise reporters will just continue to focus on what they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a great idea. I have visions of crashing the washington >>>>>>>>>>>>> correspondents dinner, but perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is some set of gatherings journalists regularly attend? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/22, 14:35, "Starlink on behalf of Dave Taht via >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Starlink" <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still find it remarkable that reporters are still missing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the huge latencies for starlink, under load. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> FQ World Domination pending: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/<https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> FQ World Domination pending: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/<https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Starlink mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Bruce Perens K6BP >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Starlink mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Bruce Perens K6BP >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Starlink mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>>>>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink> >>> >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> _______________________________________________ >> Starlink mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink> > > > > -- > FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/ > <https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/> > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
