From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-x235.google.com (mail-pf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::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 2ABE33B2A0 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 01:00:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id c4so22893276pfb.1 for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 22:00:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RMjOeJtMWBm/x8DFP2rm338LLRwNbIJI2WJuwHeGLJ0=; b=gbUPnsQMVEZ2Gxrny3KouxuwOdWbscM/wdCZK9+e0fp7xB3F4WyhUKh9e+6xCoExAA VcbjB4iBhvv0blHVllxaEOMxaz3H8gywfR7mwUMZtBm3wL4ZVoomui4jHNYl17biKL4y iTmGDIzduJSu+xISt2vF0qkDfPqmquI6TS1/iixfnXgl9/OXvOr3ouevne/6PUDw2X2U 5wbqT63xZZOBFFNA9+UkMMF9KoLE4IM9Y/8ezimZ8Vm8ynozI4XLcZwiO3t3D01tWDB6 9z8dBsliQ/CJc6ypRQuyCj5XsxHbDogiQZydsRJV89fRBC3EF1ljKKqUswgUcHQ8Qo2G j26w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RMjOeJtMWBm/x8DFP2rm338LLRwNbIJI2WJuwHeGLJ0=; b=R6Z4K4zN4EXbETT/ql2xQxHNvTyXLOblaFiHhZxvIl4BVP5YpDZ1dYMKPtmezyeA2B lGHeOkXU72TrLmjM1r8MIVs9mwNaZm3JpAxoJi993Mt9tBU2PHyJTm+GkdimLrLsCso8 AJwYveL7ijmUyv7aC9RBbCDw2SE6KTqfJMhs8U7NAG+qMX0fH6U00Tmt4lgbkM2hMkxG tLlbQPRd1kxUN3GBktlolov5FTisoGHQqFaUB2JXImMtnjW+UKVJNBAJYbVne5mh46VY Y64q+vgNvYDOoBwNbapUI4/gyp8vkiI60Oj/Lzzf5Ex8zfGlDSm2HmuANpNMbt0+GxaO 5WpA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02v8exgUhRybXj2lY76iJB373cr3cCw2CiNhUKDO9w5hv6uw3UEAK3HjKKsgej9Ew== X-Received: by 10.99.176.14 with SMTP id h14mr36883496pgf.22.1480312810111; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 22:00:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from zotac.xperim.be ([91.177.66.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m66sm83834674pfm.3.2016.11.27.22.00.08 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Nov 2016 22:00:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.172] (mordor.xperim.be [192.168.1.172]) by zotac.xperim.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76D1B489427; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 07:00:01 +0100 (CET) To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <548F6875-8670-4784-8A4D-9D4E6F0F20BD@gmail.com> <65cde0ee-4cc8-22c8-5274-a4eafe9cf338@pollere.com> From: Jan Ceuleers Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 07:00:00 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 06:00:11 -0000 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).