From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BACE21F249; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 02:17:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 37FEDA3; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:17:33 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1425291453; bh=ZPrVrYZs9wmZO8ua5WAcZi1lxKxGy9ZzFgaXnu26boc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vI7cIXp8k7c+FqA3G2fnQ9gWEsVOY7G7Slc0JX4TlKPxH4mxfs1Nug9gQZJ8pqNK3 ASW+v7hIDnKeLk7KFr89AgAmwU1yF+ahAdOQFgX+xDCTESXRmJyfUFytRoecPUgrAT 2NMsJxWoSspJCSDjx7tyto3mrmr6perxy5/5Zb3g= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34E18A1; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:17:33 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:17:33 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: <7B3E53F5-2112-4A50-A777-B76F928CE8F2@trammell.ch> Message-ID: References: <7B3E53F5-2112-4A50-A777-B76F928CE8F2@trammell.ch> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: bloat , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "aqm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" 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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 10:18:05 -0000 On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Brian Trammell wrote: > Gaming protocols do this right - latency measurement is built into the > protocol. I believe this is the only way to do it properly, and the most likely easiest way to get this deployed would be to use the TCP stack. We need to give users an easy-to-understand metric on how well their Internet traffic is working. So the problem here is that the users can't tell how well it's working without resorting to ICMP PING to try to figure out what's going on. For instance, if their web browser had insight into what the TCP stack was doing then it could present information a lot better to the user. Instead of telling the user "time to first byte" (which is L4 information), it could tell the less novice user about packet loss, PDV, reordering, RTT, how well concurrent connections to the same IP address are doing, tell more about *why* some connections are slow instead of just saying "it took 5.3 seconds to load this webpage and here are the connections and how long each took". For the novice user there should be some kind of expert system that collects data that you can send to the ISP that also has an expert system to say "it seems your local connection delays packets", please connect to a wired connection and try again". It would know if the problem was excessive delay, excessive delay that varied a lot, packet loss, reordering, or whatever. We have a huge amount of information in our TCP stacks that either are locked in there and not used properly to help users figure out what's going on, and there is basically zero information flow between the applications using TCP and the TCP stack itself. Each just tries to do its best on its own layer. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se