From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (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 88FD83B25E for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 22:23:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id f65so36727543wmi.0 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 19:23:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=1xdVJGjyu6dEGSaERKCTTPS2fuX2sv7614Ic0VFzgos=; b=srQwUrTooVw7o5WaBj/e+TLpboiPR56NGMqfITLVarZbL7pXwN+vPrTQJS/KWRiuh5 I9ZGTlm2yhHyWAPBFDTgaxnNOCsLWEVRFoC8cyxzFjuJddWhQ2Y+VsVJGuwlb9cXEZhP nYL4myyLLDjMRvcXXc2hYB0EyggyH6kXgy+9el+g1gST07uAG0aFTqzhN+DailsJqc5f xC4MUCaSwNrKOpIM3KSBPIg7SVC2wKGu0uJiFcCB1EHLHznaUvuS4y99hAnhHNT30MD+ Un3hhU+hr4T6JsJ7G9CL5SReg7bZMdi91GHLDjYsegontJyPlFjaHVEijfpcKpdDctMK gKyg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1xdVJGjyu6dEGSaERKCTTPS2fuX2sv7614Ic0VFzgos=; b=box3bAD7SWbJN01ufB5g0B53rCnFlwncvxgLLZoUS6nzbJ056lKSkcznHyEFoklXq/ JTkO32qJkpyncC052RmC2qPHvRmla2cAVlIttCZIQnif4sp2R39frULxj6GhqYrx2t5D m77iFs/3Ev0K7CrPDoxNbLYu2X+pw+3vY2zRvHat+LZawb+KTLNg535NvWZfPbThcba2 UYeZKkffw4Op4m3JFQcNSbenn02rMIk9ITt/9vR2vLyJEeDCpfK2dS+aAomCKsBaHOd9 KrEdtj9Xg4fZm7WQ9V9Fqt30WrRkTphsVSeZxQXiEpB0HYUf2REXykKx3ekF02jNAbmS +6hA== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOKpVJf3HGIV/wG7lMHVYvzTtRzAHAESCYHIosXMzubnDU8YEgzvLxRnnhjwRudktyo56V2eQkS/4idUw== X-Received: by 10.195.12.77 with SMTP id eo13mr9882665wjd.142.1472351038443; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 19:23:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: justinbeech@gmail.com Received: by 10.28.220.8 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 19:23:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5c615f4b-6162-915d-897c-871c3e843ed2@pollere.com> References: <05056A85-894D-477F-A10D-C912C7D52C2F@gmail.com> <448a25be-160f-701e-f56b-b3a33d49cff8@pollere.com> <63403b38-94fa-1670-908c-e14573f822a8@gmail.com> <8971f9f1-a79b-ce49-f7c4-660a355fdd43@pollere.com> <5c615f4b-6162-915d-897c-871c3e843ed2@pollere.com> From: jb Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 12:23:57 +1000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Cd9Q-2M2epfccxbqLo8LM8P0wfs Message-ID: To: Kathleen Nichols Cc: bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd9172aa195c1053b1870f4 Subject: Re: [Bloat] Bufferbloat test measurements 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, 28 Aug 2016 02:23:59 -0000 --047d7bd9172aa195c1053b1870f4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 The grade for one speed test represents something that the user may already recognise as being a problem, and may do something about. The aggregation of grades can highlight ISPs that are afflicted with end-user hardware that could be improved, I suppose. Is it even possible to detect ISPs afflicted with buffer related latency issues within their infrastructure using an environment where people running tests of any kind have huge CPE or Wifi buffers already? Yep the ideal situation is to have people use their entire link bandwidth and yet any additional stream should be almost as low in latency as idle latency is. That is what a grade of A+ would be highlighting, and many people have got there after seeing a poor grade and doing something about it. Regarding capping of speeds I'm just pointing out that a "cheap fix" for some people has been to throttle especially the upstream bandwidth (somehow) just below the upstream rate discovered to be the max - which reduces the opportunity to fill a large upload buffer in the modem. It is a kludge but without replacing equipment or re-flashing firmware, sometimes is the only option open to them. On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Kathleen Nichols wrote: > > Hi, Justin, > Thanks for the explanations. So the grade is for the user not the ISP? > > I just have to point out that the below jumped out at me a bit. A user > can fully use the link bandwidth capacity and not have an unacceptable > latency. After all, that's the goal of AQM. But, yes, there are those > pesky lurking buffers in the path which the user might unhappily > use to their full capacity and then latency can be unacceptable. > > Kathie > > On 8/27/16 4:39 PM, jb wrote: > > > > Generally if a user does not use their connection to full capacity, > latency > > is acceptable (but obviously the buffers are still there, lurking). > > Bursts and > > so on can discover them again but the effects are transient. > --047d7bd9172aa195c1053b1870f4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The grade for one speed test represents something that the= user may already recognise as being a problem, and may do something about.= The aggregation of grades can highlight ISPs that are afflicted with end-u= ser hardware that could be improved, I suppose. Is it even possible to dete= ct ISPs afflicted with buffer related latency issues within their infrastru= cture using an environment where people running tests of any kind have huge= CPE or Wifi buffers already?

Yep the ideal situation is to ha= ve people use their entire link bandwidth and yet any additional stream sho= uld be almost as low in latency as idle latency is. That is what a grade of= A+ would be highlighting, and many people have got there after seeing a po= or grade and doing something about it.
Regarding capping of speed= s I'm just pointing out that a "cheap fix" for some people ha= s been to throttle especially the upstream bandwidth (somehow) just below t= he upstream rate discovered to be the max - which reduces the opportunity t= o fill a large upload buffer in the modem. It is a kludge but without repla= cing equipment or re-flashing firmware, sometimes is the only option open t= o them.


On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Kathleen Nichols <= span dir=3D"ltr"><nichols@pollere.com> wrote:

Hi, Justin,
Thanks for the explanations. So the grade is for the user not the ISP?

I just have to point out that the below jumped out at me a bit. A user
can fully use the link bandwidth capacity and not have an unacceptable
latency. After all, that's the goal of AQM. But, yes, there are those pesky lurking buffers in the path which the user might unhappily
use to their full capacity and then latency can be unacceptable.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Kathie

On 8/27/16 4:39 PM, jb wrote:
>
> Generally if a user does not use their connection to full capacity, la= tency
> is acceptable (but obviously the buffers are still there, lurking). > Bursts and
> so on can discover them again but the effects are transient.

--047d7bd9172aa195c1053b1870f4--