From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91C7521F1D2 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:37:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A035B331ECE; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 23:37:47 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1430170668; bh=ZGkKrw4qTm5M0yFPhxh4FZiRoda4DdM91QMtjHVHIeY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=iDHU4U7D8oMPlKPtk3y6vEUYOB+uOVC85yP5CA/0Q9FJNkb7ON2uFp57WiJLv/1jm 76U0ee7WHeWwpdS+qHi0OZe0bRWneEu4qLNCL1Pk5okALiqv62/98hCPZHV2uv3AwP f1sSP6wE1GqXdOFzaFe6WCBQACloBfBH6xWtVaps= From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Neil Davies References: <72DB0260-F0DF-426F-A3F3-ECF5D8AF228F@pnsol.com> <877fsx3l5a.fsf@toke.dk> <874mo11sdf.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 23:37:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Neil Davies's message of "Mon, 27 Apr 2015 21:38:21 +0100") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87fv7li76c.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] Detecting bufferbloat from outside a node 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: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 21:38:25 -0000 Neil Davies writes: > =E2=88=86Q is both the concept (quallity attenuation - the fact that dela= y and > potential for loss is both conserved and only every increases[1]) and > for its representation as an improper random variable (one who's CDF > doesn't necessarily reach one). Right, got it. > One of my adages is that "network quality" doesn' t exist - just like > you can't buy a box of "dark" and make a room dark by opening the box, > you can't buy a box of "network quality" - delivering quality in > networks is managing (through bounding) the "quality attenuation" That much seems obvious. But do you have any analytical models that can actual predict the magnitude of the quality attenuation for a given network, say? And if so, are they available somewhere? Also, some of the documents linked to from your web site seems to allude to a scheduling algorithm of some sort. Is that available in paper form (or better, code!) anywhere? Thanks for your answers, will also take a look at the paper you linked in your other email. :) -Toke