From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from r-mail1.rd.orange.com (r-mail1.rd.orange.com [217.108.152.41]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01BB921F100 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:40:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail1.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2CC06DE4006; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:42:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail1.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F37DE4005; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:42:43 +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 10:40:58 +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 10:40:58 +0100 Message-ID: <52A6E1AA.5070108@orange.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:40:58 +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 References: <26FB3C56-AF24-497C-943A-3FDAE7B88D08@isoc.org> <52A6D54D.5060504@orange.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2013 09:40:58.0392 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE14C180:01CEF58B] 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 09:41:00 -0000 On 12/10/2013 10:36 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN wrote: > >>> 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. > > We only talked about it, it was never implemented (at least not when I > was there). We however made the different profiles available to > customer service, so customers could call in and have their profiles > set to whatever suited them best. > The approach you mention is way more general. Having a portal to manage per-customer last-mile QoS requirements (and the protocols to enforce that choice) is interesting. I am curious to know if customers are used to call to set their profile.