From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x243.google.com (mail-wm0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78D3E3B2A0 for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:38:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x243.google.com with SMTP id r201so3192588wme.0 for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2016 03:38:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0l8PEhHHWqpaPOX5WnPLykrROiunrDqanNy/tSdNk+k=; b=mw7JVGVHZUsTzbP6t9wRAydYukJWOcqD4X+Vr6+5tjQgpQVG1/SGFfUHqLQAG43AZV TPUHAZ9sPSTJHynH23Vh7j61nURVBOp6BjAa9erhl6wsKyW9R7Gp26TIw7yG1qx4VYPh YIidhGfM+mDo10/TlVxJyxifyOQnPLemUUZ4um+WOROzpYbjquMwxSX+oYdS/4WUfOre IQm1QaHFmXmEpJkhpfZO+SQOU85InUUoo03v6JaHViw4FAwJK4Dbg069wTxdfBmQZqgA hOy8V4YZbGowJNLigog1qLCHYRmtuCgYSenNDRCAOn7F65T7LLvEa3/bjBm0oF5JauwK shtA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0l8PEhHHWqpaPOX5WnPLykrROiunrDqanNy/tSdNk+k=; b=JUuZEFp0yOaMzaar0JSqkM0tE1cECX/VmDDDzwiuN287gsfMBTDS4Z1tjKRvfNozXG +P9/XbmOczmzHe7i5NOo6mIOcMffNyM7thQwkGaWY/cGNIOo7Nq4gKOXYMJHcvv90xkh 3582hKudej3ocNlcIOsJORLNmlj9nNnq6S0D2wwauvIM0zFVxV4yHz9SCg8XbV/flN/+ WWATWq8EgiqMwZG+7PBeFyj/VXeTbVWoItLIXpogmUZVD9TmBtcqbxSZglzR8/pzc1lH OV+CCTGZCdUEXOQugWzNCHrPICY6XCMTwaKZW9qh5sBdrWIBwZokxaEjMZ4amcrkluLz U6Bg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLvxqw1Fl5so3YB+OTV/FYa/Z/DXIzWp9XJWzd4rYtBOIhTKxYEo4JeV2Ml18v++g== X-Received: by 10.28.199.139 with SMTP id x133mr2457320wmf.45.1466246288562; Sat, 18 Jun 2016 03:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zotac.xperim.be (210.15-244-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be. [81.244.15.210]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id yr4sm41846449wjc.18.2016.06.18.03.38.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 18 Jun 2016 03:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.38] (zotac.xperim.be [192.168.1.38]) by zotac.xperim.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3861748213E; Sat, 18 Jun 2016 12:38:07 +0200 (CEST) To: Jonathan Morton References: <57650074.90106@gmail.com> <57652072.7020708@gmail.com> Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net From: Jan Ceuleers Message-ID: <5765248F.5000108@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 12:38:07 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Bloat] ultrafast broadband conference june 27-30 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: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 10:38:09 -0000 On 18/06/16 12:24, Jonathan Morton wrote: >> So it seems that you and I agree that it's not G.fast itself that is >> bloated, but the lack of proper buffer management in certain (most?) DSL >> modems, regardless of whether they support G.fast or some other flavour >> of DSL. > > Right. We’re hoping that G.fast, being a new link technology, has > taken on board some of the extensive research into buffer sizing and > management, in typical device implementations. But we’re not holding > our breath - the industry is rather stubborn on this point. We're still not on the same page. So let me again try to decode what you (and perhaps Dave) are saying: Either you perceive the problem to be located in the link technology (i.e. DSL generally or only specific flavours of it). If this is the case what needs to be fixed is the standard so that implementations thereof will improve. Or else you perceive the problem to be located in the CPE that implement DSL, but in the layer above the DSL link layer. In this case what needs to be fixed is those implementations, probably starting by the reference firmware written by chipset vendors. I think it's the latter. If it's the former then indeed don't hold your breath because the standardisation is done and dusted.