From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAC6E3B29E; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 21:33:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) by bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C00CF1B258; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 18:33:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bobcat.rjmcmahon.com C00CF1B258 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjmcmahon.com; s=bobcat; t=1672972424; bh=tUJtwFBklIuvQvzTGcr438ustpJUkHFQfEZnRVEVZOc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=HXdDy1RK3J798evZUeJhIKs2JBAJwrZu/h4tkTXZkoo0Rq6NKcfun9waxBYc19U4T zHV6QM63lJCHr8M0a96wP0/2lZxMUYIHcHnXsMrF4r5czCLlB27Rrb8feOoESvHFaZ 93nGUs/KjzIPEDXmYqw9VRPjfAonmp1XmIoor/UY= MIME-Version: 1.0 From: rjmcmahon To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu Cc: 'Sebastian Moeller' , 'IETF IPPM WG' , jf@jonathanfoulkes.com, 'libreqos' , 'Cake List' , 'Rpm' , 'bloat' In-Reply-To: <251832186E514080B5F1CF858F09A5ED@SRA6> References: <845161E4-474C-44A9-92D4-1702748A3DA1@jonathanfoulkes.com> <305203F9-4875-4A7F-939E-B54E64AA060A@gmx.de> <251832186E514080B5F1CF858F09A5ED@SRA6> Message-ID: <81cbc85adad63301d3693d5f8bf435ac@rjmcmahon.com> X-Sender: rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 18:18:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [Cake] [Starlink] [Bloat] [Rpm] the grinch meets cloudflare'schristmas present X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2023 02:33:45 -0000 X-Original-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 18:33:44 -0800 X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2023 02:33:45 -0000 > > _[RR] ... IMO, a more useful concept of latency is the > excess transit time over the theoretical minimum that results from all > the real-world "interruptions" in the transmission path(s) including > things like regeneration of optical signals in long cables, switching > of network layer protocols in gateways (header manipulation above > layer 4), and yes, of course, buffering in switches and routers __J > These are things that can be "minimized" by appropriate system design > (the topic of these threads actually!). " I think this is worth repeating. Thanks for pointing it out. (I'm wondering if better inline network telemetry can also help forwarding planes use tech like segment routing to bypass and mitigate any "temporal interruptions.") > The only way to decrease transit time is to "go wireless everywhere, > eliminate our atmosphere, > and then get physically closer to each other"! __J Like it or not, we > live in a Lorentz-ian space-time continuum also know as "our world" This reminds me of the spread networks approach (who then got beat out by microwave for HFT.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_Networks "According to a WIRED article, the estimated roundtrip time for an ordinary cable is 14.5 milliseconds, giving users of Spread Networks a slight advantage. However, because glass has a higher refractive index than air (about 1.5 compared to about 1), the roundtrip time for fiber optic cable transmission is 50% more than that for transmission through the air. Some companies, such as McKay Brothers, Metrorede and Tradeworx, are using air-based transmission to offer lower estimated roundtrip times (8.2 milliseconds and 8.5 milliseconds respectively) that are very close to the theoretical minimum possible (about 7.9-8 milliseconds)." Bob