From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ej1-x62c.google.com (mail-ej1-x62c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62c]) (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 19E423B2A4 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 14:47:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ej1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id hs11so10859354ejc.1 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:47:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=waveform.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xO6jfdZniwHb+2ObOsZRd7YeH5ewvRhfCs49NTB9aTg=; b=LZ1Z7KIdzTLMO+2KxA4JBdAYxZNnK1b1PUU79K5rjvuXakgKS2zUE99xRrQ/OqYlJ3 iDTWunkqQDQnt3TRhd05hQvL6b6CVEXxsMVccrUqtVnOarf3tqByUIwUkTq6WbgC/AbK doQ5dOcxfqteMrg5lSA6DEe2upOwg9lF63EVVbCBffhRfMqF/MZPZC0K0dKBhqP6u+hu NjUuPbYznNnGFJGhfjbDbjruNhgJ6umFDlJ7e3lr97C6cVmM1gPmJjqYm6zlSd2YKcJY SqyH7voLwJqOgZo65ixAJd4lGWX2WW8KgX8EXpOVKqLR83DH6krQvTxG2MQUXpc57iaU F7+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xO6jfdZniwHb+2ObOsZRd7YeH5ewvRhfCs49NTB9aTg=; b=B8umEqKRiE+RGHZH7UxHyFj8eud6lp2y2YFRfaikWTW1iiFl/xtRGj9ZZP82UxBOXx Evw0a7wsx/fBukuRwF0goSvu59t8mt0mCRwZGTblN1YyVOkWACsguVWclXGeZBJNJwRg 6yFTufNGv7nx/zeBeWDwdyIdZJqdP2mAqv4Ba84j57QtEA4wP4X3xBA8W4GqFM1zKI+8 N6U4QSrPhdSSRYL/NPd6eur8bplUmXH/UMvHrG9jaUZgcAZKpkWTiy7gFqRJQZf6g6UH HoaYftS4DfajrY0uReVhjwLQ+mxzrr5fAulgqCJDcjsiLMWXjztsioRK1yY+00hqXKRa HHhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533DQ9NMjtxQNBYMrCmmsqPaM57kIUSBfVhfNzgApVKo9XvcsTSQ wAkbEdgflYpr871m86D3QI6y1dep6DPp934GBRAe07XYwNWH0lnEkutARuG2grJ573LfwJMA+JO AMnZTnfbtPlfu7cSOZCgiZbYjvS/oyF2ang4IzzqaSrnP+hPSgAvTvB8qXpN7lM8zhxhY2Y/gFm 9WwvsyXSs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw94X4aqrE269ZEXqphK+QqQ5rmiEQF0MR3o0bj8GxbjlAr4dHbz7C0avTW/1ncILXnHdkGgw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5044:: with SMTP id e4mr4258888ejk.445.1614282460779; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:47:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ed1-f48.google.com (mail-ed1-f48.google.com. [209.85.208.48]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g3sm4336909edk.75.2021.02.25.11.47.40 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:47:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-f48.google.com with SMTP id h19so8397290edb.9 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:47:40 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:aa7:ce99:: with SMTP id y25mr4634919edv.167.1614282459872; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:47:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <177d80af608.27a9.e972a4f4d859b00521b2b659602cb2f9@superduper.net> <177d9698ff0.27a9.e972a4f4d859b00521b2b659602cb2f9@superduper.net> <177d9776300.27a9.e972a4f4d859b00521b2b659602cb2f9@superduper.net> In-Reply-To: <177d9776300.27a9.e972a4f4d859b00521b2b659602cb2f9@superduper.net> From: Sina Khanifar Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:47:27 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: simon@superduper.net Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson , sam@waveform.com, bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [Bloat] Updated Bufferbloat Test 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: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 19:47:42 -0000 > So perhaps this can feed into the rating system, total latency < 50mS is an A, < 150mS is a B, 600mS is a C or something like that. The "grade" we give is purely a measure of bufferbloat. If you start with a latency of 500 ms on your connection, it wouldn't be fair for us to give you an F grade even if there is no increase in latency due to bufferbloat. This is why we added the "Real-World Impact" table below the grade - in many cases people may start with a connection that is already problematic for video conferencing, VoIP, and gaming. I think we're going to change the conditions on that table to have high 95%ile latency trigger the degraded performance shield warnings. In the future it might be neat for us to move to grades on the table as well. On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 5:53 AM Simon Barber wrote: > > So perhaps this can feed into the rating system, total latency < 50mS is an A, < 150mS is a B, 600mS is a C or something like that. > > Simon > > On February 25, 2021 5:49:26 AM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > >> On Thu, 25 Feb 2021, Simon Barber wrote: >> >>> The ITU say voice should be <150mS, however in the real world people are >>> a lot more tolerant. A GSM -> GSM phone call is ~350mS, and very few >>> people complain about that. That said the quality of the conversation is >>> affected, and staying under 150mS is better for a fast free flowing >>> conversation. Most people won't have a problem at 600mS and will have a >>> problem at 1000mS. That is for a 2 party voice call. A large group >>> presentation over video can tolerate more, but may have issues with >>> talking over when switching from presenter to questioner for example. >> >> >> I worked at a phone company 10+ years ago. We had some equipment that >> internally was ATM based and each "hop" added 7ms. This in combination >> with IP based telephony at the end points that added 40ms one-way per >> end-point (PDV buffer) caused people to complain when RTT started creeping >> up to 300-400ms. This was for PSTN calls. >> >> Yes, people might have more tolerance with mobile phone calls because they >> have lower expectations when out and about, but my experience is that >> people will definitely notice 300-400ms RTT but they might not get upset >> enough to open a support ticket until 600ms or more. >> >> -- >> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se > >