From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de [IPv6:2001:470:96b9:4:130:149:220:252]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB41E21F15E for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:09:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.81] (g231085229.adsl.alicedsl.de [92.231.85.229]) by mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C32374C2A11 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:09:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50B66F95.9040904@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:09:57 +0100 From: Oliver Hohlfeld User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120411 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] FQ_Codel lwn draft article review X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:10:00 -0000 > Cole, Robert G., and Joshua H. Rosenbluth. "Voice over IP performance > monitoring." ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 31, no. 2 (2001): > 9-24. You might want to check ITU-T Recommendation G.107 (E-Model), which is a widely accepted standard on this matter. Note that it was originally designed as network planning tool, but is often used as parametric quality estimation model nowadays. It has some limitations, so check the respective assumptions before applying it and take the results with a grain of salt. There is a whole bunch of literature discussing this. --Oliver