From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x231.google.com (mail-ob0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231]) (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 D8D3B21F2B9 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:16:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id wp18so33445330obc.8 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:15:59 -0800 (PST) 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; bh=Dkj9lSjvWHU+U4jo5p/hlT6sPDuRqEuDALMyv5fAl30=; b=H/hQBFZAFBCWFyHQeIEQrMJraEQJqFbBsWbTYBp+p/58Wja24XQBEm6zE8CWXm7NU5 Gd2XKH7f5tK7gt9yprC1EKJY9cjYcwBGTYV4UC25AISpgqYWHD39+h+CUP3/m0UZkmlW yWmnsyYjlRiWk9geG9ApSNTAX9Z5Vve18P+J7RIRpHUexrGNH/Gkc1qncOYH3+/mH5eF XYqRM0lW+oBrUVviTrqSgTXjix2f89lW6s3p1rm4Yv6GzISGEgHCd0VWc73IM9Rfk0/H 3EnrgTCUztEYr3gy/FCshkFpWd+i116NxbTbnn7Cuntkg50WJ5JSiBu5NSzhiYMhSZb/ agLQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.62.70 with SMTP id l67mr19989558oia.59.1425334559768; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:15:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.51.66 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:15:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7B3E53F5-2112-4A50-A777-B76F928CE8F2@trammell.ch> <802AFC8C-B59B-4971-A4ED-5C0375E683B1@gmail.com> <54F4B37A.8040405@pollere.com> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:15:59 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: "Bill Ver Steeg (versteb)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ce09a1f045e0510559068 Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" 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, 02 Mar 2015 22:16:29 -0000 --001a113ce09a1f045e0510559068 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Bill Ver Steeg (versteb) wrote: > > > While I do not formally speak for =E2=80=9Ca big vendor=E2=80=9D in this = (or any) context, > I do happen to work for one. > > > > There are several efforts underway within this particular big vendor to > address bloat. Are these efforts crash programs to get code out the door = as > fast as humanly possible? No. There are efforts underway, though. These > things take time=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6 To be frank, the best way to drive fea= ture > development/deployment/adoption in most big companies is to have customer= s > ask for them. > Creating understanding and demand has been my nearly f/t project for several years now. I hope it is finally starting to work! However, along the way - in trying to work with everybody in all parts of the industry, and to "get along" - I found myself in a deep moral and mental hole where I realized I was no longer being true to myself or being effective in what I had really set out to do by attempting to create this open, shared project, where I had hoped we all would be working together for a common goal. It was probably the gogo-in-flight test results with a *total lack of ping loss* and *12 minutes of latency* that set me off in the beginning... here are some pings from the middle of the test: 64 bytes from :elided: icmp_seq=3D5108 ttl=3D42 time=3D144333 ms 64 bytes from :elided: icmp_seq=3D5109 ttl=3D42 time=3D143335 ms 64 bytes from :elided: icmp_seq=3D5110 ttl=3D42 time=3D142327 ms 64 bytes from :elided: icmp_seq=3D5111 ttl=3D42 time=3D141319 ms 64 bytes from :elided: icmp_seq=3D5113 ttl=3D42 time=3D139311 ms netperf-wrapper results and the ping log of the flight as it went towards landing are here: http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/gogo-in-flight-interplanetary-latencie= s.tgz of the actual remaining throughput and latency on the aircraft, after a test had completed (sort of), and another started: http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/GoGoSFO/gogo_in_flight_interplanetary_= latencies.png (netperf-wrapper was not designed to deal with RTTs greater than from here to mars, so the plot doesn't make much sense! The pings don't fit right! But the bandwidth is *gone*) Gogo-in-flight, at least, could use a crash program to fix their bufferbloat! I know that adding a 50 dollar openwrt box or upgrading their software would probably cost a lot in regulatory approvals, but gawd!!! 12 minutes of latency! A total collapse of their network! From a simple test! And despite trying through every channel I could, I have not found anyone there with an IQ above 80 to talk to about how to dramatically fix their own services. They make their money from selling the service, not, actually, in providing it, in a totally captive market. And at some point, you just have to laugh - as I did when I called them out, and gave them the finger, at nznog. And my inspiration, for what basically has caused me to rear back, and start saying and doing exactly what I think, *all the time*, a few weeks ago, here and on the internet, in words that that were utterly clear, short and simple, was George Carlin's piece, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DvuEQixrBKCc It is NSFW, but I do find clearing the air, has been useful, and I hope everyone here, laughs their collective arses off at this! I will write more tomorrow, I'm done today. I have *severe trust issues* where your company is concerned, and I will detail why, tomorrow, publicly, if I can filter out the cuss words and be at least reasonably polite about it. > We are actually starting to see broader awareness of the problem at the S= P > network edge, and this is probably where we need solutions the fastest. > There have been some gap-filler changes in the HFC space recently, and th= e > next generation CMTS products will have a quite robust solution. As noted > previously, the CPE and the DSLAMs will also need to be addressed. > Unfortunately (perhaps fortunately to some folks on this list=E2=80=A6. b= ut I > digress), the company I work for is no longer in these parts of the > business, as we sold off the Linksys group off a few years ago and got ou= t > of the DSLAM business many years ago. I do still have some contacts in th= e > chipset vendor community in the CPE space, and could help drive awareness > if it would help. As most of us understand, the chipset vendors have a lo= t > clout in this area - as they supply most of the heavy lifting code to the > OEM/ODM CPE folks for their commercial offers. The open source community = is > currently ahead of the chipset folks and the OEM/ODM folks in this space. > > > > So, IMHO the best way to make progress in the CPE arena is to get the > chipset vendors to provide a robust AQM scheme in their default drivers. > There may have to be some tweaks to get a given algorithm to work in a > given chipset/memory/CPU architecture. In fact, there may be room for > algorithms that take advantage of features of a given chipset, or to desi= gn > a new chipset that =E2=80=9Cdoes the right thing=E2=80=9D in uCode. If I= were a consultant > =E2=80=93 this is where I would focus my efforts=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80= =A6. > > > > I am not sure how to crack the DSLAM egg, though. Different set of > players, different set of initial conditions. > > > > Bill VerSteeg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* bloat-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net [mailto: > bloat-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Morton > *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 2:42 PM > *To:* Kathleen Nichols > *Cc:* bloat > *Subject:* Re: [Bloat] [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" > > > > Probably the least cynical answer to that I can come up with is the hope > that big vendors get a clue that this stuff is needed, and start hiring > field experts as consultants to help them get it right. > > You can stop snickering now. > > Another possibility is that some of us have to club together and make our > own hardware that Does The Right Thing, possibly still based on one of th= e > generic reference hardware platforms, if we can find one that we like and > is cheap enough to compete. Which, once again, would take care of the CPE > problem but practically nothing else, unless we somehow managed to get a > foot in the door of the DSLAM market. Which is about as likely as the > Prince of Darkness taking a skiing holiday at home. > > - Jonathan Morton > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb --001a113ce09a1f045e0510559068 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Bill Ver Steeg (versteb) <versteb@cis= co.com> wrote:

=C2=A0

While I do not formally speak for =E2=80=9Ca= big vendor=E2=80=9D in this (or any) context, I do happen to work for one.=

=C2=A0

There are several efforts underway within th= is particular big vendor to address bloat. Are these efforts crash programs= to get code out the door as fast as humanly possible? No. There are efforts underway, though. These things tak= e time=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6 To be frank, the best way to drive feature develop= ment/deployment/adoption in most big companies is to have customers ask for= them.


Creating understanding and demand has been m= y nearly f/t project for several years now. I hope it is finally starting t= o work!

However, along the way - in trying to w= ork with everybody in all parts of the industry, and to "get along&quo= t; - I found myself in a deep moral and mental hole where I realized I was = no longer being true to myself or being effective in what I had really set = out to do by attempting to create this open, shared project, where I had ho= ped we all would be working together for a common goal.=C2=A0

It was probably the gogo-in-flight test results with a *tota= l lack of ping loss* and *12 minutes of latency* that set me off in the beg= inning... here are some pings from the middle of the test:

64 bytes from=C2=A0:elided: icmp_seq=3D5108 ttl=3D42 time= =3D144333 ms
64 bytes from=C2=A0:elided: icmp_seq=3D5109 ttl=3D42= time=3D143335 ms
64 bytes from=C2=A0:elided:=C2=A0icmp_seq=3D511= 0 ttl=3D42 time=3D142327 ms
64 bytes from=C2=A0:elided:=C2=A0icmp= _seq=3D5111 ttl=3D42 time=3D141319 ms
64 bytes from=C2=A0:elided:= =C2=A0icmp_seq=3D5113 ttl=3D42 time=3D139311 ms

netperf-wrapper results and the ping log of the flight as it went to= wards landing are here:

of the actual remain= ing throughput and latency on the aircraft, after a test had completed (sor= t of), and another started:=C2=A0http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/GoGoSFO/gogo_in_flight_interplanetar= y_latencies.png

(netperf-wrapper was not de= signed to deal with RTTs greater than from here to mars, so
the plot doesn't make much sense!= The pings don't fit right! But the bandwidth is *gone*)

Gogo-in-flight, at least, could use a crash program to fix th= eir bufferbloat! I know that adding a 50 dollar openwrt box or upgrading th= eir software would probably cost a lot in regulatory approvals, but gawd!!!= 12 minutes of latency! A total collapse of their network! From a simple te= st! And despite trying through every channel I could, I have not found anyo= ne there with an IQ above 80 to talk to about how to dramatically fix their= own services. They make their money from selling the service, not, actuall= y, in providing it, in a totally captive market.

And at some point, you just have to laugh - as I did when I called them o= ut, and gave them the finger, at nznog.

And my = inspiration, for what basically has caused me to rear back, and start sayin= g and doing exactly what I think, *all the time*, a few weeks ago, here and= on the internet, in words that that were utterly clear, short and simple, = was George Carlin's piece, here:


It= is NSFW, but I do find clearing the air, has been useful, and I hope every= one here, laughs their collective arses off at this!

I will write more tomorrow, I'm done today. I have *severe trust = issues* where your company is concerned, and I will detail why, tomorrow, p= ublicly, if I can filter out the cuss words and be at least reasonably poli= te about it.=C2=A0
<= br>
=C2=A0

We are actually starting to see broader awar= eness of the problem at the SP network edge, and this is probably where we = need solutions the fastest. There have been some gap-filler changes in the HFC space recently, and the next gener= ation CMTS products will have a quite robust solution. As noted previously,= the CPE and the DSLAMs will also need to be addressed. Unfortunately (perh= aps fortunately to some folks on this list=E2=80=A6. but I digress), the company I work for is no longer in= these parts of the business, as we sold off the Linksys group off a few ye= ars ago and got out of the DSLAM business many years ago. I do still have s= ome contacts in the chipset vendor community in the CPE space, and could help drive awareness if it would help. As most= of us understand, the chipset vendors have a lot clout in this area - as t= hey supply most of the heavy lifting code to the OEM/ODM CPE folks for thei= r commercial offers. The open source community is currently ahead of the chipset folks and the OEM/ODM folks in= this space.

=C2=A0

So, IMHO the best way to make progress in th= e CPE arena is to get the chipset vendors to provide a robust AQM scheme in= their default drivers. There may have to be some tweaks to get a given algorithm to work in a given chipset/memo= ry/CPU architecture. In fact, there may be room for algorithms that take ad= vantage of features of a given chipset, or to design a new chipset that =E2= =80=9Cdoes the right thing=E2=80=9D in uCode.=C2=A0 If I were a consultant =E2=80=93 this is where I would focus my efforts=E2=80= =A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6.

=C2=A0

I am not sure how to crack the DSLAM egg, th= ough. Different set of players, different set of initial conditions.=

=C2=A0

Bill VerSteeg

=C2=A0

= =C2=A0

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

From: bloat-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net [mailto:bloat-bounces@li= sts.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Jonathan Morton
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 2:42 PM
To: Kathleen Nichols
Cc: bloat
Subject: Re: [Bloat] [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful"<= u>

=C2=A0

Probably the least cynical answer to that I can come up with is the hope= that big vendors get a clue that this stuff is needed, and start hiring fi= eld experts as consultants to help them get it right.

You can stop snickering now.

Another possibility is that some of us have to club together and make ou= r own hardware that Does The Right Thing, possibly still based on one of th= e generic reference hardware platforms, if we can find one that we like and= is cheap enough to compete. Which, once again, would take care of the CPE problem but practically nothing els= e, unless we somehow managed to get a foot in the door of the DSLAM market.= Which is about as likely as the Prince of Darkness taking a skiing holiday= at home.

- Jonathan Morton


_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<= /a>
= https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat




--
Dave T=C3=A4ht
Let's make wifi fast, less jit= tery and reliable again!

https://plus.google.= com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb
--001a113ce09a1f045e0510559068--