From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (r-mail2.rd.orange.com [217.108.152.42]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C995A21F19A for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:48:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id BFC695D8900; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:48:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail2.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61125D88FF; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:48:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:48:13 +0100 Received: from [172.31.0.6] ([10.193.116.12]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:48:13 +0100 Message-ID: <52A6D54D.5060504@orange.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:48:13 +0100 From: MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mikael Abrahamsson , Matthew Ford References: <26FB3C56-AF24-497C-943A-3FDAE7B88D08@isoc.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2013 08:48:13.0254 (UTC) FILETIME=[8F830660:01CEF584] Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] CFP: Workshop on Reducing Internet Latency X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:48:16 -0000 On 12/10/2013 07:48 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > So I would have liked the above to not say "broadband lines" but > instead said ADSL(2+) broadband lines (because the above statement > only relates to ADSL(2+) afaik), and also that the packet losses can > be non-trivial for some and that ISPs don't turn on interleaving out > of ignorance. It's hard to measure customer impact of "errored > seconds" which is the only way the ISP can see packet losses. Also, > these errored seconds can be quite severer when it comes to number of > packets dropped. it applies to ADSL to court. > > We actually did talk about having a self-service portal where the > customer could choose their preferred profile, either fast (no > interleaving), 4ms or 16 ms interleaving, and also their safety margin > to 6, 9 or 12 dB. Fast or 4ms interleaving worked well with 12 dB SNR > margin (which means lower latency but also lower access speeds), > whereas 6dB margin often required 16ms interleaving to work well. Was that successful? Did customers use that? Usually it is not, but I'd like to know about your experience. Luca