From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-x235.google.com (mail-qk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (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 D59E33B2A0 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 16:25:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id x190so122625442qkb.0 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 13:25:00 -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=Qaxna10oh00m5yhfmy8tPf1RkocbgulpZq7H5M5F71s=; b=eZd0KC1uTqJ10nV0ssUkQUq6uWyVqvLnOXZTRC2Jg1Blod5d5aRoibxZFRx+go719m XHzhEkmTAIWRcKr33EIhIX7xTgEXQgUP8GGg+Bvp5AkD76OdBsqESs+xCzTdO4/2jmSZ g9/aIJy9DsDqjn6gP8KOD4/J0Ux7NhhT3Lp+RY5Pki1W/cIgVjefbAnAjqaOaZ0k2LRs Z+QJUj6htQd/788Xj+lviadRDpZDiz6mTH5X2nrGrzf+qS3xGy8n3NIyA0YnmEtv2tzt yVmvR2zy+X/Om/R/Jq0msXLHr0255ddJGPLjUgRspEokaWaloNCkbhAmhpCvo+1Lr9o8 hP/Q== 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=Qaxna10oh00m5yhfmy8tPf1RkocbgulpZq7H5M5F71s=; b=fWR3sIw/Gr40H0E2zv7BonPGoarVW3+b6TochTwCLCSTekdXklz62u0gAF8de+D/by dzgD7N75ujvLbJNy7S5ENSo3vDkITLjE8iwpFSey5llLgoctJZlQ9Xd1hvHLByKSlE3I EymmlzjgJoK4c8tOsqAO+/wmaiQoJy2pejtmEboJ5gaQxodHwaFW65qkcG/cv22welxj 2Yur6Th8NvIuphD3CUh3BMLsxVSfPrbyKG7goCmA30cD7SYrY3JYFkom26qOKCcOqdxn +EspXPJA9avk0WSGl0q9splGXpe9Uph4d3Fz+PM6/7CPg1YrWogWOKltvC3icOW81SCA 60yA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02DPMzJ7US60h/wgaMowRxXOBefdvtpu6lG9UT/HWR4kJp16IvmCilxBrzr0n5gHVr/aeP0Pu7h7V2FRg== X-Received: by 10.55.221.29 with SMTP id n29mr18492659qki.114.1480281900304; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 13:25:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.137.198 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 13:24:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <548F6875-8670-4784-8A4D-9D4E6F0F20BD@gmail.com> References: <548F6875-8670-4784-8A4D-9D4E6F0F20BD@gmail.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 13:24:59 -0800 Message-ID: To: Rich 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: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:25:00 -0000 There *are* 430+ other minds on this mailing list, and probably a few AIs. Sometimes I worry that most of our postings go into spamboxes now, or that we've somehow completely burned people out since our heyday in 2012. knock, knock - is this mic on? On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Rich Brown wrote= : > Dave T=C3=A4ht attempts to refocus the group, and asks: > >> Can I encourage folk to think big and out of the technical box? >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> What's left to do? >>> >>> What else can we do? >>> >>> What should we stop doing? >>> >>> What can we do better? > > Lots of good thoughts on this thread. > > My impression is that we have reached a strong technical point. We have s= olved some really hard, really significant problems. We are in a position t= o Declare Victory on a large part of the problem, even though there are loa= ds of details to clean up. > > Most of the suggestions in this thread deal with Getting the Word Out. Th= at's good - that's the declaring victory part. The bad news is that this is= not our collective skill set. > > Some thoughts about what we *can* do: > > 1) Toke et al published (are publishing?) a scholarly paper on the make-w= ifi-fast efforts that "looks like real academic research" (by *actually bei= ng* academic research :-) This makes it credible to other academicians, and= throws down the gauntlet with a low latency value that others need to impr= ove upon. (No more academic papers that say, "We really worked hard, and go= t latency down to 100 ms. Aren't you proud of us?") > > Are there other papers bottled up inside team members? > > 2) I wonder if we would gain credibility by updating the bufferbloat web = site. I see two things that could be done. > a) Change the www.bufferbloat.net home page to use a one-page des= ign (see, just as an example, https://bootstrapmade.com/demo/Baker/) with s= ections that address our primary constituencies: Home users, Gamers, Manufa= cturers, Software Developers, and Network Researchers. It adds a bit of pol= ish, while keeping our message simple. People can drill down into the (exis= ting) pages for more information. > b) We should make a pass through the site, organizing according t= hose constituencies, and removing content that is no longer relevant. > c) I also grabbed the DNS name "makewififast.com" in case we want= to use it. > > 3) I think it's great to contact reviewers - ArsTechnica and AnandTech we= re mentioned. (I did reach out to Wirecutter and ask that they incorporate = bufferbloat tests in their router recommendations. I was disappointed by th= e total radio silence.) > > 4) Do we know people at any of the cell phone companies, or router vendor= s on whom we could try one last push? > > As part of organizing my thoughts for this note, I also collected the fol= lowing ideas from this thread. I add my $0.02 below. > > Rich > > 1) I don't see that Ookla has much incentive to include bufferbloat measu= rements in their test, since they private-label it for lots of ISPs who (pr= esumably) wouldn't want their CPE to be proven crappy. ("It is difficult to= get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not un= derstanding it!" -Upton Sinclair) > > 2) The gamer community seems like such a perfect target for these improve= ments. But I fear that the thought leaders are so wrapped up in the fame ge= nerated by their own clever QoS tricks that they can't believe that fq_code= l plus the make-wifi-fast fixes could possibly address such a complicated s= ubject. (Upton Sinclair, again.) > > 3) On the other hand, Comcast (whose DOCSIS modems *might* someday suppor= t PIE or other SQM) is in a position to benefit from an increased awareness= of the phenomenon, leaving a little ray of hope. > > [Note - I wrote 4 & 5 below before I learned of IQrouter... I'm still ske= ptical of the mainline router vendors adopting this technology anytime soon= into their stock firmware.] > > 4) I do wish that there were a way to we could stop saying, "Just update = your router firmware (trust us...)" as a solution. It would be so much bet= ter to say, "Just buy this low-cost (or medium-cost) router that'll make yo= u supremely happy." > > 5) But I'm not hopeful that any of the COTS router vendors are going to a= dopt these techniques, simply because they've been impervious to our earlie= r entreaties. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try again - it'd be a helluva = competitive advantage to incorporate the 25-50 man years of intense softwar= e development that has gone into this work. > > 6) It *is* a good idea to think about attracting the attention of vendors= who are hurt by bufferbloat - VoIP, video streaming folks, gaming companie= s, etc. But it feels like the wrong end of the lever - a gaming company can= 't fix crappy CPE, and they're stuck saying > > 7) Cell phones are another place that obviously would benefit, although, = again, it's hard to break through the notion that "It's always been like th= at..." > > What else? > > Rich > > _______________________________________________ > 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