Re: [Bloat] dslreports bufferbloat tests

["Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>]

On 4/6/16, 1:08 PM, "Bloat on behalf of Kelvin Edmison"
<bloat-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net on behalf of kelvin@edmison.net>
wrote:


>I think people focus on packet loss so much because the term is short,
>seemingly conveys a lot of info and is easy to measure.
>
>Given that know how to measure bloat, it strikes me that what is needed
>is a short marketing-style tag for bloat that can be put up against the
>term "packet loss".

The BITAG has discussed this issue and debated whether to take up a work
item on it, because it is clear that it is not always the case that more
(or any) packet loss is necessarily bad. And Dave Clark and Steve Bauer
have done some good analysis basically saying packet loss measurements
don¹t really correlate the broadband quality and more work is needed.

My sincere hope is that the new FCC broadband label does not encourage
behavior that will lead to a goal of 0% loss, which would quite obviously
be bad in many ways from a performance and quality standpoint and run
counter to all the good AQM-related work.

Jason