From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-x244.google.com (mail-qk0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::244]) (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 ACC7F3B260 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:12:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qk0-x244.google.com with SMTP id n204so13603738qke.2 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 07:12:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=m/xcMpY4j9OA9OdKKDCs0uAfBl2f0rBf/2inqkSlCtA=; b=LuEceWCfDWavlQLfV8ro/QBjUCgP24Mu6a8kT7+oEVE7QaQ+Vg6PHOWUXslGBGDNwG vPjVtQQzFngG5ANlR4yqaM97XpBnltvgcnZROwRBu0yXBJiwq2b92Gs1b0pYgmawiwhd 6eNDNQcBZ3pGekXXJti7xsCHSExeLrkDTi4qoHtM3aTFn91YSfKzol8J2Opap/ANV68m iV+OhgEwprQT6jHPSsrG88buUneO4ZoVmt9MA3DdpFskQ/LuFvIAGYN/ibNy6IpDeQWi fbSLKzEwG+aAn1aaCmMYYEDe5inoY+9YZPagNgq1ykVCU14yAfhysfSIG5XVE99rLapI gY4w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=m/xcMpY4j9OA9OdKKDCs0uAfBl2f0rBf/2inqkSlCtA=; b=QDmnqRkM38a673vnjyvcucN5mxeuOOfuafD/INwZetgwTieDKJyVxLNbLv58F0auro 9VE21FoObwUePffEv+lWSABtIbYDSHVvPecAdfVWOpuvgCtzaFkocAnvE8vSgOabtc73 iE14s70hGIv6V2WLugsim6pkFemjRl6pXpILlnKCiIn1meenxBe6i1uJWPtWIrzaxI4t BYUOT47P0HJ2aoW9D4BYTXv0cmUcVjbKwbt2NJZSqBMaDmseuCpVAitU9xSsNoxD4CKK Xou32DkvUnb2vcmRNNLpbYLOvyRwzUb40gIkcG7vn3dCO4cXWaxtKyOs68KBDx/yHoyj YHvA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC038jpjQbY+KS7EmFxqEU8hTBeWayeEi94f1yYxrNZU3/zQzigFnr/6B26Oe36q5kByYEQ3Gj09VcTErfw== X-Received: by 10.55.136.134 with SMTP id k128mr21055668qkd.196.1480345975165; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 07:12:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.137.198 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 07:12:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <548F6875-8670-4784-8A4D-9D4E6F0F20BD@gmail.com> <65cde0ee-4cc8-22c8-5274-a4eafe9cf338@pollere.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 07:12:54 -0800 Message-ID: To: David Collier-Brown Cc: bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bloat] Fixing bufferbloat in 2017 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: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 15:12:55 -0000 On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 4:48 AM, David Collier-Brown w= rote: > A short RFC with a clear summary would change the ground on which we stan= d. > Include me in if you're planning one. Call me grumpy. Call me disaffected. But it's been 4 years into the IETF RFC process with codel and fq_codel with still no end in sight. I presently have no hope that a "short RFC" can enter and exit the IETF in a reasonable amount of time, without being watered down into unreadability. > > --dave > > > On 28/11/16 01:00 AM, Jan Ceuleers wrote: >> >> On 28/11/16 03:16, Jim Gettys wrote: >>> >>> Ookla may have made themselves long term irrelevant by their recent >>> behavior. When your customers start funding development of a >>> replacement (as Comcast has), you know they aren't happy. >>> >>> So I don't sweat Ookla: helping out the Comcast test effort is probably >>> the best way to get bufferbloat in front of everyone, and best yet, the >>> code for the tests is out there. >> >> I do hope you're right Jim, but I still worry that Ookla is heavily >> entrenched in carriers' test labs. This position has, I believe, come >> about not because of Ookla's expertise in network testing but rather >> because of market pull (i.e. speedtest.net's huge popularity with >> end-users). >> >> As long as both of these positions remain (i.e. Ookla's mind share of >> end-users and their resulting market share in the labs of large >> purchasers of CPE) their lack of interest in bufferbloat is going to >> keep this topic off the agenda in a large part of the industry. >> >> Unless Ookla can be coerced somehow. >> >> I have previously suggested standardising network throughput testing >> methods and "grading" criteria. If there's an RFC on this subject >> carriers are going to be interested in conformance to it and will >> pressure their suppliers (of network testing gear, of CPE etc). >> _______________________________________________ >> Bloat mailing list >> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > > > > -- > David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify > System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest > davecb@spamcop.net | -- Mark Twain > > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! http://blog.cerowrt.org