Re: [Bloat] Fixing bufferbloat in 2017

[David Collier-Brown <davec-b@rogers.com>]

A short RFC with a clear summary would change the ground on which we stand.
Include me in if you're planning one.

--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