From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3B093B29D for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 09:28:57 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1679664536; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=xnu5oBncTRXJj19rfIg9vdWRw4yGDxQ+pDdJqvMWREU=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:Subject:Date:To; b=npyYtNLK+qC4Yp1L5gYZmrglR4+CQ2K+07PAA9sQf9HDHQLJyExtoS4Z9E/ch6+i7 IM7GF6HYt9uliarjKxxqXWmFPvxpU3vXUoVI6yHp9iUJPbFKQMBD+zfvrjzbZmqe20 hEtYk2NxDTbUAQghHdW1911IxJ4sli1aD6AoBLCNec1fzcF++fWZdI+CnuqNrBbu/9 lGG7HgwiVYGtoajeTQWS7bO9ZrF8hqiSflN2beQg58xdxJDRRdJxz4duhtksU4We9v DjfOk2ubUSXOze/+ypFUqY6Mr4R2tBrERyOmgvF2PiSn/XDa/I5xi8shxAESDEonrC Ycq/5c7NpLuDg== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1ML9yc-1pxv7C1oV0-00IF0Z for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 14:28:56 +0100 From: Sebastian Moeller Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.2\)) Message-Id: <8C32C099-B827-44B4-A810-4A688AA7FF62@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 14:28:55 +0100 To: bloat X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.2) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:jvMlA75xHzdCj/BodNf0/gyaEiO1+815LMPzVOoQ3bO6YSmXnQq u7WuUMb7aXw33OUutqea8+0HciDde2HVSo+3fcrXJBL6LLQFwhYz+aXKsha+nQsYHq31VW7 NoM8y+al2ZP0NLwQkeI8Y+9zHC8g4cYDP5gJBqwOQosEc4kj2GUdvTnMo7UGp0JufLotZWD yIMb4fJ/zbOd0+PHos9kw== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:Vyeu5pL51pc=;gGdnhblZj+pvKY+KIXbcD1qdc2x N4IJ+CovetK3yYf5dzXEjdXJJMiCn8qlnXR5Q1mOwPhyY9QMetGepL1aKqUsm4tfkDj9Dd/hM AzrmJ7l3i5jTN006eZlLFQVCDQrd7QvBYktqliuC3ivyv5PI5DfI/pcZc8E38c7pVP/kqFYJe XU3/Aq07uqLUbDq2s1IWGPm5b+rSu6egC1x4gyvpqNBC6uBRY1ilLMhlbvHrKywXL4YeUNUPj Yn2/mMl+gGRfUUpw6dV1Ov1Fj7zfx6wxj7+xlg1M47gMTLNPESnVLAU122nsM/3zd0B9BZxsH SWtV26MI4A3K4+vl9sZz+JFikZNPc4dTsB8I6LCnbW6xMO2xZ0SnF5z1MEk4KFyUEr+TBJ3wc Ad8YxRIDI3eEi1YTtNF1oWFg8r7hibfMbcOVQR76uXJWrXjXRo4xebsNoI6vikED/+Vn+zL6+ FeP4VZhKSqPIhqt6xBAjmG4x7bsygHUPRCpOdLpG8smUqyhPvLJKPL5FGkHLaHwMh6BGDSDYT tEgTN4/FjIYzgaFWpg3A8Qbnwc46/kERwEZJlePXF0o4vhVvgO7FmqPkfz5ZXfnDkm7KM2QlR A6TDzk2IfYOd/fTW7mMJ2QO6wFUxL9BP11HLq5L3duvpRaskeZVKhEbC27KjdKmXoMsc2ixGx PHwnwqO6/OKH4VA/w25E/uR/PweqUj9K+bCYtADyBCQy+YhpGn9D9Dnu6Wck51EFi8gOqqULQ wUuGf2sE+ABmeZoxqcnawBP/a7Lkl/48OaNvlT5l05Urn3zh/RQZXSERY5xtXHwcgz6BXFEME jmGyi4LMAaRHGIZKgYtzyeWcKnhKQjhCl1zadMJ/8RT8gOuYliDa0sIXWtCpCI82EWsDI9zfu rONDWMAfRkd5oFO070MzC/Q/eDJ8731qzttLicrRq/to8jXN8PibLNLmlCV+atTztfzxXHr+Z rZ52XOZWBRxtkQY8lxz0n9D+RYc= Subject: [Bloat] quality attenuation... 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: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:28:58 -0000 Just started to look at domos whitepaper for quality attenuation: "Typically, a traffic stream of randomly-sized packets with an overall = rate of 16kbps is sufficient to measure the =E2=88=86Q along a network = path." Let's see how applicable this is on a metered link: (16*1000/8)*(60*60*24)/(1024^2) =3D 164.8 MB/day=20 (16*1000/8)*(60*60*24*30)/(1024^2) =3D 4.9 GB/month this is a lot of traffic for say anything below 10GB/month plan, no? Yet this is still less than running a ping stream at 50Hz which comes = out at roughly twice the measurement traffic volume.=20 But I digress...=20 Essentially for endusers the only thing reasonable/possible seems to = measure the final aggregate static and variable delay/loss components... = anything more involved seems to require participating friendly = measurement nodes along a path that ISPs inside their own network have = access to , end-users however somewhat less.=20 Just try a longer running mtr trace to your ISPs DNS servers, = and note the progression of delay and loss along the path; due to = rate-limiting and de-prioritization often intermediate hops show = increased packet loss and delay that is not reflective to delay and loss = reported by the end node. The upshot of which is these are useless for = assessing "quality attenuation" for non-ICMP traffic which will not be = subject to rate-limiting and de-prioritization. So with my end-user hat = on, I am not sure what to do with this, as I can not verify these = numbers...=