> I love that there are oh, 700+ people on these mailing lists, but we
> have zero visibility due to google not indexing them, where hackernews
> does. This is going to be an issue dominating the web (again, sadly)
> for a few weeks at least, and it would really help to be doing it
> there, rather
> On Sat, Jul 1, 2023 at 12:23?AM Rodney W. Grimes
> wrote:
> >
> > > This paper does a really good job of measuring the impacts of tcp
> > > cross traffic, including BBRv2, against the videoconferencing
> > > subsystems in signal, telegram, and whatsapp.
&
> This paper does a really good job of measuring the impacts of tcp
> cross traffic, including BBRv2, against the videoconferencing
> subsystems in signal, telegram, and whatsapp.
Did I miss something? The paper only shows a dumb bell topology with
instream traffic, I did not see any cross flow
> The distance matrix defines signal attenuations/loss between pairs. It's
> straightforward to create a distance matrix that has hidden nodes because
> all "signal loss" between pairs is defined. Let's say a 120dB attenuation
> path will cause a node to be hidden as an example.
>
> A
> Bounding harm.
>
> https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rware/assets/pdf/ware-hotnets19.pdf
I believe this was presented to IETF iccrg at the last meeting,
and is what Pete is using to calculate the "harm" value used
in the current L4S/SCE test data.
> d...@taht.net CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729
> This is through one of the last remaining cerowrt boxes in the world,
> running fq_codel. tcp-davis takes about a 20% single stream throughput
> hit vs bbr.
>
> I note, that I don't care one whit about throughput anymore. I care
> that nothing, NOTHING messes up my videoconference...
IMHO it
Hello Luca, tsvwg'ers,
I believe that there is some confusion around about how video
conference streams, and video *streams* in general differ from other
forms of traffic. I believe some of that confusion comes about not
only becasue of the FEC nature that many use but also over the
> Rod:
>
> It looks like they also would like to move the SCE preso up front. You
> cool with that? I've set my alarm.
I agenda bashed early as that change has not happened in the offical
posted agenda and we are >24 hours from meeting. I'll see what or
how the respond, but yes, the guys are
> This is a quick reminder that we'll have a virtual interim meeting via
> WebEx on Thursday. Details are at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-interim-2020-tsvwg-01-tsvwg-01/
>
> It's from 10:00 to 12:00 America/New_York.
Correction, they updated the time to 9:00 to 11:00
> there are a multitude of papers posted for the buffer sizing workshop
>
> http://buffer-workshop.stanford.edu/papers/paper23.pdf was interesting.
Would be nice to get them to add ECN(sce) to the mix of there tests.
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:08 PM Dave Taht wrote:
> >
> > there are no
> > there are no minutes posted.
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tsvwg-sessa-81-some-congestion-experienced-00
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tcpm-some-congestion-experienced-in-tcp-00
>
> The above 2 decks are
> Hi Jonathan,
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 2019, at 23:23, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 Dec, 2019, at 12:17 am, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> >>
> >>> There are unfortunate problems with introducing new TCP options, in that
> >>> some overzealous firewalls block traffic which uses them. This
> there are no minutes posted.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tsvwg-sessa-81-some-congestion-experienced-00
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tcpm-some-congestion-experienced-in-tcp-00
The above 2 decks are identical. Jonathan
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:06 PM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Holland, Jake wrote:
> >
> > > Granted, it still remains to be seen whether SCE in practice can match
> > > the results of L4S, and L4S was here first. But it seems to me L4S comes
> > > with some problems
14 matches
Mail list logo
