Yes, EDCAs are multidimensional. The coupling of EDCA to a DSCP field,
Access Class (AC) or MAC queue is just an engineering thing. The EDCA is
really just for an upcoming access arbitration and doesn't have to be
held constant. And the values are under control of the WiFi BSS manager.
What's a WiFi BSS manager one might ask? It's an unfilled role that the
standards engineers assumed would occur, yet are networking roles are
under staffed all over the planet. The default EDCAs are just some made
up numbers that have no simulation or other backing - though many think
they're gold or something - which they're not.
There are so many things at play just for WiFi performance yet alone
e2e. I wouldn't know where to start for a consumer label. Even marketing
terms like WiFi 6, 6e and 7 seem to mostly add confusion.
Then engineers design for the tests because what else can they do? And
the tests struggle to represent any kind of reality. Labels are likely
going to have a similar affect.
Even the basics of capacity and latency are not understood by consumers.
The voice engineers created mean opinion scores which I don't think
consumers ever cared about. Then we talk about quality of experience
(QoE) as if it were a mathematical term, which it isn't.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Nnagain [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of rjmcmahon via Nnagain
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 11:18 AM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects
heard this time!
Cc: rjmcmahon; Nick Feamster
Subject: Re: [NNagain] Internet Education for Non-technorati?
I've added many metrics around latency and one way delays (OWD) in
iperf
2. There is no single type of latency, nor are the measurements
scalars.
(Few will understand violin plots or histograms on labels)
On top of that, a paced flow will have a different e2e latency
histogram
than an as fast as possible (AFAP) flow. They also drive different
WiFi
behaviors. Hence, it's not just a simple arrival rate and service time
anymore, even for queuing analysis. (Though Little's Law is pretty
cool
and useful for displacement ratings) Throw in BSS managed EDCAs and
all
bets are off.
_[RR] Wouldn’t the issue of EDCAs (i.e.different queues for
different priority classes with different tx parameters for each),
just make the analysis (more) “multidimensional”? Might it be
possible to model such scenarios as N different collocated
bridges/routers), one for each access category? Does any of what I
just said make any sense in this context? __J __J_
_ _
_RR_
Bob
I think y'all are conflating two different labels here. The
nutrition
label was one effort, now being deploye, the other is cybersecurity,
now being discussed.
On the nutrition front...
We successfully fought against "packet loss" being included on the
nutrition label, but as ghu is my witness, I have no idea if a
formal
method for declaring "typical latency" was ever formally derived.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-requires-broadband-providers-display-labels-help-consumers
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:39 AM David Bray, PhD via Nnagain
<[email protected]> wrote:
I was at a closed-door event discussing these labels about two
weeks
ago (right before the potential government shutdown/temporarily
averted for now) - and it was non-attribution, so I can only
describe
my comments:
(1) the labels risk missing the reality that the Internet and
cybersecurity are not steady state, which begs the question how
will
they be updated
(2) the labels say nothing about how - even if the company promises
to
keep your data private and secure - how good their security
practices
are internal to the company? Or what if the company is bought in 5
years?
(3) they use QR-codes to provide additional info, yet we know
QR-codes
can be sent to bad links so what if someone replaces a label with a
bad link such that the label itself becomes an exploit?
I think the biggest risks is these we be rolled out, some exploit
will
occur that the label didn't consider, consumers will be angry they
weren't "protected" and now we are even in worse shape because the
public's trust has gone further down hill, they angry at the
government, and the private sector feels like the time and energy
they
spent on the labels was for naught?
There's also the concern about how do startups roll-out such a
label
for their tech in the early iteration phase? How do they afford to
do
the extra work for the label vs. a big company (does this become a
regulatory moat?)
And let's say we have these labels. Will only consumers with the
money
to purchase the more expensive equipment that has more privacy and
security features buy that one - leaving those who cannot afford
privacy and security bad alternatives?
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 1:31 PM Jack Haverty via Nnagain
<[email protected]> wrote:
A few days ago I made some comments about the idea of "educating"
the
lawyers, politicians, and other smart, but not necessarily
technically
adept, decision makers. Today I saw a news story about a recent
FCC
action, to mandate "nutrition labels" on Internet services offered
by
ISPs:
https://cordcuttersnews.com/fcc-says-comcast-spectrum-att-must-start-displaying-the-true-cost-and-speed-of-their-internet-service-starting-april-2024/
This struck me as anecdotal, but a good example of the need for
education. Although it's tempting and natural to look at existing
infrastructures as models for regulating a new one, IMHO the
Internet
does not work like the Food/Agriculture infrastructure does.
For example, the new mandates require ISPs to "label" their
products
with "nutritional" data including "typical" latency, upload, and
download speeds. They have until April 2024 to figure it out.
I've
never encountered an ISP who could answer such questions - even
the
ones
I was involved in managing. Marketing can of course create an
answer,
since "typical" is such a vague term. Figuring out how to attach
the
physical label to their service product may be a problem.
Such labels may not be very helpful to the end user struggling to
find
an ISP that delivers the service needed for some interactive use
(audio
or video conferencing, gaming, home automation, etc.)
Performance on the Internet depends on where the two endpoints
are,
the
physical path to get from one to the other, as well as the
hardware,
software, current load, and other aspects of each endpoint, all
outside
the ISPs' control or vision. Since the two endpoints can be on
different ISPs, perhaps requiring one or more additional
internediate
ISPs, specifying a "typical" performance from all Points A to all
Points
B is even more challenging.
Switching to the transportation analogy, one might ask your local
bus
or
rail company what their typical time is to get from one city to
another. If the two cities involved happen to be on their rail
or
bus
network, perhaps you can get an answer, but it will still depend
on
where the two endpoints are. If one or both cities are not on
their
rail network, the travel time might have to include use of other
"networks" - bus, rental car, airplane, ship, etc. How long does
it
typically take for you to get from any city on the planet to any
other
city on the planet?
IMHO, rules and regulations for the Internet need to reflect how
the
Internet actually works. That's why I suggested a focus on
education
for the decision makers.
Jack Haverty
_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
