Re: [Bloat] "Very interesting L4S presentation from Nokia Bell Labs on tap for RIPE 88 in Krakow this week! "

On 5/22/24, 09:11, "Sebastian Moeller" mailto:moell...@gmx.de>> wrote: >[SM] The solution is IMHO not to try to enforce rfc7282 [JL] ISTM that the things in 7282 are well reflected in how TSVWG operates. I know from experience it can be hard when rough consensus doesn't go your way - it

Re: [Bloat] Fwd: "Very interesting L4S presentation from Nokia Bell Labs on tap for RIPE 88 in Krakow this week! "

> 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. > And the fact that WG members see no harm in having private only strategy > discussions with chairs and ADs. In my

Re: [Bloat] [EXTERNAL] Re: "Very interesting L4S presentation from Nokia Bell Labs on tap for RIPE 88 in Krakow this week! "

> I don't dispute that, at least insofar as the metrics you prefer for such > comparisons, under the network conditions you also prefer. But by omitting > the conventional AQM results from the performance charts, the comparison > presented to readers is not between L4S and the current state of

Re: [Bloat] [EXTERNAL] Re: "Very interesting L4S presentation from Nokia Bell Labs on tap for RIPE 88 in Krakow this week! "

[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] That graph is not anything like what we’ve seen in lab or field testing. I

Re: [Bloat] "Very interesting L4S presentation from Nokia Bell Labs on tap for RIPE 88 in Krakow this week! "

On 5/21/24, 12:19, "Bloat on behalf of Jonathan Morton via Bloat wrote: > Notice in particular that the only *performance* comparisons they make are > between L4S and no AQM at all, not between L4S and conventional AQM - even > though they now mention that the latter *exists*. I cannot speak

Re: [Bloat] WiFi

Dropping Starlink as Bloat is the right list. The IEEE 802.11 domain is certainly different than IP, so typical IP CCs don’t apply. In our L4S/NQB trials, we put LL-marked packets into the AC_VI WMM queue in the Wi-Fi network. IMO there is more work in 802.11 to focus on latency – so much focus

Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] net neutrality back in the news

On 9/29/23, 09:29, "Rich Brown" mailto:richb.hano...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Thank you Jonathan for this clear description of the issues and their > history. I wonder if there's a fourth one - privacy. > Rosenworcel's talk also points out that ISPs might want to monetize our > traffic patterns and

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

On 9/29/23, 00:54, "Jonathan Morton" mailto:chromati...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Some ISPs began to actively degrade Netflix traffic, in particular by > refusing to provision adequate peering capacity at the nodes through which > Netflix traffic predominated That is not true and really not worth

Re: [Bloat] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

I forgot to add - the workshop has a great summary at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5594.html On 9/28/23, 17:07, "Livingood, Jason" mailto:jason_living...@cable.comcast.com>> wrote: On 9/28/23, 16:06, "Sebastian Moeller" mailto:moell...@gmx.de>

Re: [Bloat] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

On 9/28/23, 16:06, "Sebastian Moeller" mailto:moell...@gmx.de>> wrote: >> The answer ended up being a mix of more capacity, apps being more responsive >> to other LAN demands, and then advancements in congestion control & queuing. >> But there were many customers who were basically

Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

> From: Bloat on behalf of Jeremy Austin > via Bloat > I'm interested in seeing how one can enforce the 'will of the people' -- the > application vendors (who are doing everything in their power to prevent ISPs > identifying *anything* about the traffic) will certainly not obey such a >

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

> dan wrote: > "(I assume most ISPs want happy customers)." made me laugh a little.  'Most' by quantity of businesses maybe, but 'most' in terms of customers being served by puts the Spectrums and Comcasts in the mix (in the US) and they don't care about happy customers they care about

Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

On 9/28/23, 02:25, "Bloat on behalf of Sebastian Moeller via Bloat" mailto:bloat-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > wrote: > But the core issue IMHO really was an economic one, the over-subscription > ratios that worked

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

On 9/28/23, 12:45, "Starlink on behalf of Dave Taht via Starlink" mailto:starlink-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net > wrote: > It would be nice, if as a (dis)organisation... the bufferbloat team could focus on

[Bloat] Testing Offer - Comcast L4S Trials

As noted recently, we (Comcast) will soon begin L4S testing with customers. We’re working on our test plans now. So my offer here is to let me know if: 1 – You have test probes you’d like us to deploy. We are working on a plan to send out (1) University of Chicago NetMicroscope probes and (2)

[Bloat] Inform: Volunteer for Comcast Field Trials

FYI that today we (Comcast) have announced the start of low latency networking (L4S) field trials. If you are a customer and would like to volunteer, please visit this page. For more info, there is a

Re: [Bloat] Net Job

That role reports to me – folks can ping me 1:1 if they have Qs. :-) From: Bloat on behalf of "Carlin, Tim via Bloat" Reply-To: "Carlin, Tim" Date: Friday, March 31, 2023 at 04:02 To: "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: [Bloat] Net Job At the risk of one more related though off-topic

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat

Happy to help (you can ping me off-list). The main products are DOCSIS and PON these days and it kind of depends where you are, whether it is a new build, etc. As others said, it gets super complicated in MDUs and the infrastructure in place and the building agreements vary quite a bit. Jason

Re: [Bloat] Another Measurement Program

FWIW, just heard from Ann and Wesley (cc’d) that they are well below their target numbers (16 signups of a 120 target). So just throwing this out there again…. Jason From: "Livingood, Jason" Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 at 11:14 To: Dave Taht via Bloat Subject: Another Measurement Program

Re: [Bloat] [EXTERNAL] Re: Another Measurement Program

> My principal issue with all this wonderful activity, is I would like, rather desparately, for all the researchers involved to discuss their methods, and try to calibrate them against a reference of some kind. I think researchers & industry are in the 'storming' phase and not yet ready for

[Bloat] Another Measurement Program

When it rains, it pours… There's another measurement program focused on fixed wireless (LEO and 5G) - in addition to others I have posted the last few months. Signup is at https://measuringwirelessamerica.com/signup Personally – looking forward to ~6 months from now when all these various

[Bloat] Good Podcasts & Reporters?

As I work on our planned field trials of low latency network improvements, I am building a list of possible podcasts to talk to & reporters. Any suggestions for ones with whom to talk? I know Doc Searls has interviewed Dave before, so his podcast might be interested. Any other suggestions from

[Bloat] Another BB measurement program - U Chicago

Since I have posted about a few other recent measurement programs looking for testers – especially those targeting LEO networks a testing latency – here’s one more. This one is recruiting to test growing fixed wireless networks (LEO & 5G), expanding prior studies they have done in wireline

Re: [Bloat] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Starlink] Researchers Seeking Probe Volunteers in USA

> 0) None of the tests last long enough. The user-initiated ones tend to be shorter - likely because the average user does not want to wait several minutes for a test to complete. But IMO this is where a test platform like SamKnows, Ookla's embedded client, NetMicroscope, and others can come

Re: [Bloat] FCC requires broadband "Nutritional Label"

On 11/18/22, 07:36, "Bloat on behalf of Rich Brown via Bloat" wrote: > Even though the label only specifies "typical latency", I have a sense that > this is a good step forward. If your ISP specifies 5 msec as "typical" and > their crummy router is bloated, can you get a repair if you call

Re: [Bloat] [EXTERNAL] Re: Measuring 5G Bloat (Was 5G going south)

Maybe eventually - but let’s walk before we run and start with 2 so we have a sufficient sample size. On 10/31/22, 10:25, "Dave Taht" wrote: Jason: OK to add a few bleeding edge non-5g fixed wireless networks to the mix? On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:21 AM Livingood, Jason wrote:

[Bloat] Measuring 5G Bloat (Was 5G going south)

FWIW - I'm working with a few measurement networks and researchers that are very soon deploying measurement probes - in the US - on 5G fixed wireless access connections and LEO (Starlink). These probes range on the low end from RIPE Atlas to higher end RPi-based probes. If you are interested in

Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] [Make-wifi-fast] [Cake] The most wonderful video ever about bufferbloat

> Better is that network engineers "design bloat out" from the beginning > starting by properly sizing queues to service jitter, and for WiFi, to also > enable aggregation techniques that minimize TXOP consumption. Maybe – like ‘security by design’ and ‘privacy by design’ – we need ‘low

[Bloat] Game Demo Suggestions?

Some of my colleagues in the office are recording video of gaming with and without AQM (bloated vs unbloated), etc. Any suggestions on games that will really make this obvious & compelling – something cool and worthy of posting on YouTube? Thanks! Jason

Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] broadband cost analysis

On 4/14/22, 11:40, "Bloat on behalf of Rich Brown" wrote: >$2K-$4K per premise for the drop cable from the pole and the router in the > premise What is the CPE router? Does it have AQM or some other latency control mechanism? Thx! Jason ___

[Bloat] FWA Test Results

This is from a colleague that was using 5G FWA at home. Their computer was connected to the gateway via Ethernet and the gateway was next to a glass door with LoS to the tower ~0.25 mi away (no tree/leaf or other obstructions). So definitely a best case for location in the home & connectivity

Re: [Bloat] ntia broadband RFC

In my personal opinion, these agencies are usually quite happy to have comments from technical experts. If any of you do make comments, making them concise and not too complex will tend to ensure they are widely read and internalized. ;-) In the details, I could certainly see folks in this

Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] Airbnb

Great news, Matt! If I may make a recommendation, IMO a standalone working latency test would have greater utility than integrating such a measurement into an existing test & so it may have the opportunity of more widespread usage. JL From: Bloat on behalf of Matt Mathis via Bloat Reply-To:

Re: [Bloat] Fwd: Airbnb

Unfortunately this is not an aggregate capacity test but a single connection test so I don’t think AirBnB selected a test that is matched to the question their prospective guests are interested in. That test certainly has it’s uses as a diagnostic tool but perhaps not to say how fast someone’s

Re: [Bloat] [EXTERNAL] Re: Of interest: Comcast AQM Paper

That is the XB3 - see https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/broadband-gateways-userguides. It is DOCSIS 3.0 and you should definitely replace it. I will ping you 1:1. On 8/1/21, 17:01, "Kenneth Porter" wrote: --On Sunday, August 01, 2021 9:28 PM + "Livingood,

Re: [Bloat] Of interest: Comcast AQM Paper

On 8/1/21, 16:13, "Bloat on behalf of Kenneth Porter" wrote: > Mine is a TG1682G, which I'm betting lacks PIE. So how do we get an upgrade? The "XB3" definitely lacks it - as it's DOCSIS 3.0-based. You may be eligible for a replacement, depending on your speed tier. Take a look at

Re: [Bloat] Of interest: Comcast AQM Paper

On Jul 30, 2021, at 10:28 PM, Livingood, Jason via Bloat > mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote: > > FYI that I will be presenting a lightning talk at the IRTF MAPRG meeting > today at 17:30 ET > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/agenda-111-maprg<ht

Re: [Bloat] Of interest: Comcast AQM Paper

o you know if the wifi stacks in your home routers also have AQM? Simon > On Jul 30, 2021, at 10:28 PM, Livingood, Jason via Bloat wrote: > > FYI that I will be presenting a lightning talk at the IRTF MAPRG meeting today at 17:30 ET (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatrack

[Bloat] Of interest: Comcast AQM Paper

FYI that I will be presenting a lightning talk at the IRTF MAPRG meeting today at 17:30 ET (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/agenda-111-maprg). The talk links to a just-published paper at https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.13968 (click PDF link in upper right of page) that will

Re: [Bloat] Little's Law mea culpa, but not invalidating my main point

> 2) Users are pissed off, because they clicked on a web page, and got nothing > back. They retry on their screen, or they try another site. Meanwhile, the > underlying TCP connection remains there, pumping the network full of more > packets on that old path, which is still backed up with

Re: [Bloat] Really getting 1G out of ISP?

> For DOCSIS the issue seems to be an unfortunate frequency split between up > and downstream and use of lower efficiency coding schemes. Performance really takes a big step forward once a person has a D3.1 modem in their home, bringing OFDM and OFDMA as key advancements. Also in flux at the

Re: [Bloat] Really getting 1G out of ISP?

> It doesn't help that all the local ISP's claim 10Mbit upload even with 1G > download. Is this a head end provisioning problem or related to Docsis 3.0 > (or later) modems? I'll cover this in an upcoming technical paper (mid-July I hope). Depending on the DOCSIS version, CMTS, and cable

[Bloat] BITAG Paper Call for Contributors

Folks here may be interested… The BITAG (Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group) is soon starting work on a paper explaining latency – targeted at policymakers, lawmakers, regulators, and other non-technical audiences. These are papers that usually run 20 – 25 pages total and are produced

[Bloat] AQM & Net Neutrality

I’m looking for opinions here re bloat-busting techniques like AQM in the context of network neutrality (NN). The worry I have is whether some non-technical people will misunderstand how AQM works & conclude that implementing it may violate NN because it would make interactive traffic perform

Re: [Bloat] [EXTERNAL] Re: Terminology for Laypeople

is highly loaded (iCloud photo sync), the latency is very high. Cheers, Jonathan Foulkes On May 4, 2021, at 8:02 PM, Livingood, Jason via Bloat mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote: Like many of you I have been immersed in buffer bloat discussions for many years, almost entirely with

[Bloat] Terminology for Laypeople

Like many of you I have been immersed in buffer bloat discussions for many years, almost entirely within the technical community. Now that I am starting to explain latency & latency under load to internal non-technical folks, I have noticed some people don’t really understand “traditional”