From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 010A23CB35 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:43:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F5538ACF; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:43:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 7EZwNWOEozpD; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:43:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B3238AC4; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:43:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C32B26; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:43:25 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Sam Westwood , bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Subject: Re: [Bloat] We built a new bufferbloat test and keen for feedback X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 23:43:28 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sam Westwood wrote: > Downlink Saturated, and Uplink Saturated. In the first stage we simply > measure latency to a file hosted on a CDN. This is usually around 5ms > and could vary a bit based on the user's location. We use the webTimi= ng > API to find the time-to-first-byte, and consider that as the > latency. In the second stage we run a download, while simultaneously Just to clarify: the latency measurement involves a TCP three-way handshake, with the fourth packet providing the end of the process. No TLS, I hope? > We built testing it on Chrome, but it works on Firefox and mobile > too. On mobile results may be a little different, as the APIs aren't > available and so instead we implemented a more manual method, which c= an > be a little noisier. Would webrtc APIs have helped? =2D- Michael Richardson . o O ( IPv6 I=C3=B8T consulti= ng ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAl+jPJ0ACgkQgItw+93Q 3WU3Tgf/WL+bxVFHwyLPJNyV5QuWNma5RGwXBD0voJHDdiUpzCDAYhgPWYvkzDnT UZcrKf2q+ap7+QgjGno7Tb1hor7MU6wBxFqJEqsDITChboK+RUcejfxkEkARiSTZ TRO2C1JrLU/Lau3niymW42Zax4a8qNPcJTiWpy3C9IyoSilq5H1ZFA7wMh4c73hh Qdvm/V2cn5aB/OPnFd1K9HoI59m1vLn6UwIl2jyDyxzp2fi1TFUh9Tcbrmx9POg4 xsEeOtn/QbFLX7wZfyLE+O9P0fWkrtIvgxInS5/lAuI4QLA/Ntizj3IsxtMXMq2R Vdhpp8z7TL1oiZAeHQof2MGy5VZyKQ== =yfUL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--