On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Dave Taht wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Jan Ceuleers wrote: >> On 08/28/2014 06:35 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >>> When a message is lost due to an error, how do you determine whose fault >>> it is? >> >> Links need to be engineered for the optimum combination of power, >> bandwidth, overhead and residual error that meets requirements. I agree >> with your implied point that a single error is unlikely to be indicative >> of a real problem, but a link not meeting requirements is someone's fault. >> >> So like Jerry I'd be interested in an ability for endpoints to be able >> to collect statistics on per-hop loss probabilities so that admins can >> hold their providers accountable. > > I will argue that a provider demonstrating 3% packet loss and low > latency is "better" than a provider showing .03% packet loss and > exorbitant latency. So I'd rather be measuring latency AND loss. Yep, the drive to never loose a packet is what caused buffer sizes to grow to such silly extremes. David Lang > One very cool thing that went by at sigcomm last week was the concept > of "active networking" revived in the form of "Tiny Packet Programs": > see: > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7143v3.pdf > > Which has a core concept of a protocol and virtual machine that can > actively gather data from the path itself about buffering, loss, etc. > > No implementation was presented, but I could see a way to easily do it > in linux via iptables. Regrettably, elsewhere in the real world, we > have to infer these statistics via various means. > > > >> Jan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bloat mailing list >> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > > > > -- > Dave Täht > > NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat