From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa0-x233.google.com (mail-oa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 814AB21F736 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id n16so921534oag.24 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:13:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fgP01j0cpp2CkS1oCwaUks9RAR5Lxkj7Q6R28b3oUjs=; b=WzeGsy7QEVCOEYbFSCRKj2r46b9C5cI/bujAuyjwQ8aPwPJe2znnVD2TlbnGH/oRUa QkLHG4bttv/RY30jiDN4kfTmdCc22kIknSy5lbNaucxe9ygnstzvXLqOxGSrQRD/qF2T 5r9ZixyQjSpqrsBjO8QKtuMfAKnWclvmBJjO7wojcxIEgfqVWv2UEqCUusuSzS27zwWl NKU6fGwNck0q66+sGE7L8J80RoSgsI000iKa/W5mv8lHz+LNnPuQG3KAbdW6t9t26ium 28VXL5iFFjjwx0gK1WzC2eFzZGVkGAdOnuO/tdXHanzB2oBkP6q6rRFNQSdBf8OKMRrp Jhhg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.147.229 with SMTP id tn5mr5426187oeb.11.1409249601683; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.93.69 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:13:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53FF6E56.8070800@gmail.com> References: <000001cfbefe$69194c70$3b4be550$@duckware.com> <000901cfc2c2$c21ae460$4650ad20$@duckware.com> <2A5BB518-351B-4598-AF79-7088D640AA06@gmail.com> <000301cfc2db$f655d3c0$e3017b40$@duckware.com> <53FF6E56.8070800@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:13:21 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Jan Ceuleers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] The Dark Problem with AQM in the Internet? 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: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:13:22 -0000 On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Jan Ceuleers wro= te: > On 08/28/2014 06:35 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> When a message is lost due to an error, how do you determine whose fault >> it is? > > Links need to be engineered for the optimum combination of power, > bandwidth, overhead and residual error that meets requirements. I agree > with your implied point that a single error is unlikely to be indicative > of a real problem, but a link not meeting requirements is someone's fault= . > > So like Jerry I'd be interested in an ability for endpoints to be able > to collect statistics on per-hop loss probabilities so that admins can > hold their providers accountable. I will argue that a provider demonstrating 3% packet loss and low latency is "better" than a provider showing .03% packet loss and exorbitant latency. So I'd rather be measuring latency AND loss. One very cool thing that went by at sigcomm last week was the concept of "active networking" revived in the form of "Tiny Packet Programs": see: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7143v3.pdf Which has a core concept of a protocol and virtual machine that can actively gather data from the path itself about buffering, loss, etc. No implementation was presented, but I could see a way to easily do it in linux via iptables. Regrettably, elsewhere in the real world, we have to infer these statistics via various means. > Jan > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_= indecent.article