From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACBB821F44C; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id x13so8049363wgg.9 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:35:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=I32bWzEtCwzY/kPWb7qUIMbhrnlt5S5SHC7RXE46z0w=; b=PXe8AY6SRWpyJvCvvKPBBxLiLCZ41ARWTtH7VsQnY3p99WNIXQNnbqyZn5w0kbFcQg tlMHMFtJskpuJAXhzpZeZlUvzjH29HNy4IdH22eqWZf0uVxHDVreDmmTaYbipZ+38D8/ k1tnIPG+hTvprXy+NlJxTQxZKwDIhfQxzU3y3bu4dPUWNE7vT1KPzyhf5nfEUW34+p8g kdlD6UEeyjw2rsrqHbybOwxNsAy+LtsrHmzJVgjFupBj2Q+h+e18DYVeXb4ZAVUlDDP5 HUmrSpEnns6YCbNdMnvgbxa0vYAjx/Hevw6f2MhAc9IuLqhc4T0uG+4jyRyxxwQ5D8ME mAlg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.83.68 with SMTP id o4mr8814992wiy.72.1410453335425; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.106.18 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:35:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 18:35:35 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pedro Tumusok To: Dave Taht Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428f0407ca700502ccc28f X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:01:39 -0700 Cc: Wes Felter , =?UTF-8?Q?Joel_Wir=C4=81mu_Pauling?= , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] Fixing bufferbloat: How about an open letter to the web benchmarkers? X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:36:12 -0000 --f46d04428f0407ca700502ccc28f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Would it be possible to create this alternative test site, to show end users that speed is not everything. If you get a result with some comments, ala netalyzr, most people would probably be happy with that? Or just a netalyzr lite maybe? Pedro On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > The theme of networks being "engineered for speedtest" has been a > common thread in nearly every conversation I've had with ISPs and > vendors using every base technology out there, be it dsl, cable, > ethernet, or fiber, for the last 4 years. Perhaps, in pursuing better > code, and RFCs, and the like, we've been going about fixing > bufferbloat the wrong way. > > If Verizon can petition the FCC to change the definition of > broadband... why can't we petition speedtest to *change their test*? > Switching to merely reporting the 98th percentile results for ping > during an upload or download, instead of the baseline ping, would be a > vast improvement on what happens today, and no doubt we could suggest > other improvements. > > What if we could publish an open letter to the benchmark makers such > as speedtest, explaining how engineering for their test does *not* > make for a better internet? The press fallout from that letter, would > improve some user education, regardless if we could get the tests > changed or not. > > Who here would sign? > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Joel Wir=C4=81mu Pauling > wrote: > > I have been heavily involved with the UFB (Ultrafast Broadband) PON > > deployment here in New Zealand. > > > > I am not sure how the regulated environment is playing out in Canada > > (I am moving there in a month so I guess I will find out). But here > > the GPON architecture is METH based and Layer2 only. Providers (RSP's) > > are the ones responsible for asking for Handoffer buffer tweaks to the > > LFC(local fibre companies; the layer 0-2 outfits-) which have mandated > > targets for Latency (at most 4.5ms) accross their PON Access networks > > to the Handover port. > > > > Most of the time this has been to 'fix' Speedtest.net TCP based > > results to report whatever Marketed service (100/30 For example) is in > > everyones favourite site speedtest.net. > > > > This has meant at least for the Chorus LFC regions where they use > > Alcatel-Lucent 7450's as the handover/aggregation switches we have > > deliberately introduced buffer bloat to please the RSP's - who > > otherwise get whingy about customers whinging about speedtest not > > showing 100/30mbit. Of course user education is 'too hard' . > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > --=20 Best regards / Mvh Jan Pedro Tumusok --f46d04428f0407ca700502ccc28f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Would it be possible to create this alternative test site,= to show end users that speed is not everything.

If you = get a result with some comments, ala netalyzr, most people would probably b= e happy with that?
Or just a netalyzr lite maybe?=C2=A0
<= br>
Pedro

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Dave Taht <dave.tah= t@gmail.com> wrote:
The the= me of networks being "engineered for speedtest" has been a
common thread in nearly=C2=A0 every conversation I've had with ISPs and=
vendors using every base technology out there, be it dsl, cable,
ethernet, or fiber, for the last 4 years. Perhaps, in pursuing better
code, and RFCs, and the like, we've been going about fixing
bufferbloat the wrong way.

If Verizon can petition the FCC to change the definition of
broadband... why can't we petition speedtest to *change their test*? Switching to merely reporting the 98th percentile results for ping
during an upload or download, instead of the baseline ping, would be a
vast improvement on what happens today, and no doubt we could suggest
other improvements.

What if we could publish an open letter to the benchmark makers such
as speedtest, explaining how engineering for their test does *not*
make for a better internet? The press fallout from that letter, would
improve some user education, regardless if we could get the tests
changed or not.

Who here would sign?


On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Joel Wir=C4=81mu Pauling <joel@aenertia.net> wrote:
> I have been heavily involved with the UFB (Ultrafast Broadband) PON > deployment here in New Zealand.
>
> I am not sure how the regulated environment is playing out in Canada > (I am moving there in a month so I guess I will find out). But here > the GPON architecture is METH based and Layer2 only. Providers (RSP= 9;s)
> are the ones responsible for asking for Handoffer buffer tweaks to the=
> LFC(local fibre companies; the layer 0-2 outfits-) which have mandated=
> targets for Latency (at most 4.5ms) accross their PON Access networks<= br> > to the Handover port.
>
> Most of the time this has been to 'fix' Speedtest.net TCP base= d
> results to report whatever Marketed service (100/30 For example) is in=
> everyones favourite site speedtest.net.
>
> This has meant at least for the Chorus LFC regions where they use
> Alcatel-Lucent 7450's as the handover/aggregation switches we have=
> deliberately introduced buffer bloat to please the RSP's - who
> otherwise get whingy about customers whinging about speedtest not
> showing 100/30mbit. Of course user education is 'too hard' . _______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<= /a>
= https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat



--
Best regards= / Mvh
Jan Pedro Tumusok

--f46d04428f0407ca700502ccc28f--