From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-x436.google.com (mail-pf1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) (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 302623CB37 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 06:12:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pf1-x436.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6b5af4662b7so3579180b3a.3 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 03:12:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1700478765; x=1701083565; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=+Yys0S9qAzNjPVSMZkZO9BiLbZMkwvO3yLIjS22djhY=; b=kBT15+2udqb7KMHHd9Cm7JKRrv0Ehkg0df6heLRIdtcxxRMBMT5Hk7Dj8UNFfFBlsp 8B34lUkEMzwo9yaIcFitRrLeGjDUPAkX3KREYyvZkI4TUZ4rXGhn5OxYMOf/nt6WVpII Fol6nYR5Ljsb2BmnK7rgcBXWOKoln9pB+6P7ctb6NQ1FAHLBVu6TfMxgxfUCgHpWNmUD NDYOF0sD39xp84JLUgT8laSPMdwWXbcE8j0ekMWWGXKaeZaoIX7FirJrdDgDerRVZsMb 9pF1Hz/KxVY1eODT3Mm9areUn3x6/Rci0m6citrP0JIhI9Cp++sXp1hv31a+TI8WMhxm ZiDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700478765; x=1701083565; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+Yys0S9qAzNjPVSMZkZO9BiLbZMkwvO3yLIjS22djhY=; b=HtFKrmYXHolqFKY6Z05khK+HreQhHp9YbiqG2KBz6ChbTJEUo7i7seDqDrXXWSzux7 RDb9UGZnM4gXdabYQVkF4je2ZskYP9o9AgrcHbjpN/qcgNc617MOqHqCj305u5CzQyBk e8qmW9Qs4F/RHsIUvr0H6Oe24QF40duSEtdMV5Uzgwd5ZVAhfg7Ia61TmNsbUivLWzMz HXAtPsBCoFDQGO3VhKnfgMSdVbPDMjHalKzO5YkElJ4clzy5mCSQQoltBsfFEU5S7b3p DAv2cBhvcp7fSN3j1VAwWHr5ipvAhFXBX9SqhV3UGccIss95aQhb0k+4An9xdc4JHPB5 Zcaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyOq986XQntbahHTshyFz0Xq353ju3P46UCWQx7P562mnJ0wW64 RemESxH4X87Gg460QROW2/eoo3GU+GOXgzUWREs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHlhk9WhKjfwpidzP2htirUtRU/eN6iw+83CzYki8DvslnBiB3GCzF3FLbOhxU68zPqvIYKKoLfJcW8KWmNqWI= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4a48:b0:281:d55:6fe8 with SMTP id lb8-20020a17090b4a4800b002810d556fe8mr4401562pjb.24.1700478764621; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 03:12:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <77361236-700F-462F-A8AA-74F592D3DE84@connectivitycap.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 06:12:31 -0500 Message-ID: To: "Brewer, Jonathan" Cc: Jim Forster , Nicholas Weaver , libreqos Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [LibreQoS] The New Zealand broadband report X-BeenThere: libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Many ISPs need the kinds of quality shaping cake can do List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 11:12:46 -0000 My larger point is that the relationship between overbuffering and latency under load is VERY statistically significant, and independent of the underlying physical transport, and if it were called out more, we would more rapidly see an improvement here, across all technologies you survey. As an example in the USA, both COX and Comcast have deployed DOCSIS pie (RFC8033), in the past few years - 3-4x improvements! From looking at your data, that seems not to have happened yet there, and knowledge of the netalyzer work and all the bufferbloat research that followed, spreading still all too slowly. The rfc8290 technology the wisps have been deploying is pretty great, but of course I would say that benign one of the authors! I hope that these algorithms become common against all network infrastructure types some day. Fiber benefits too! It just involves rigorously creating a correct buffering number on the cpe, or putting in a better algorithm, to deploy, nearly no new physical infrastructure. I liked the dslreports style of report which tried to call out winning and losing ISPs on its metrics. It would spur competition. Thx for engaging a bit! I otherwise like this reporting series a lot! On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 3:14=E2=80=AFAM Brewer, Jonathan wr= ote: > > Hi All, > > The WISP association in NZ claims coverage of 70k households, but this in= cludes many situations where WISPs purchase wholesale 4G, fibre, or even VD= SL from the larger operators and resell where it's available. Then there ar= e a few WISPs who operate 4G/LTE networks based on Telrad and Cambium cnRan= ger too. Our Commerce Commission still doesn't understand how it all works = and continues to use "WiMAX" to describe the mainly 5 GHz Ubiquiti and Camb= ium FWA networks used by Uber (mentioned below) and many others. > > So the reason the report doesn't break out non-lte, non-5g FWA is that it= 's probably not more than a few tens of thousands of subscribers, and not s= tatistically significant. These providers do great work and more than 30 of= them are customers of my radio engineering practice, but few have signific= ant numbers of non-LTE, non-5G FWA. > > I've attached a different report from NZ's ComCom that might be of intere= st as it looks at the industry makeup, not just performance. > > Cheers, > > Jon > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 at 13:35, Jim Forster wrote= : >> >> Jon, >> >> I couldn=E2=80=99t resist asking you for comment. :-) >> >> Jim >> >> > On Nov 9, 2023, at 4:56=E2=80=AFPM, Dave Taht via LibreQoS wrote: >> > >> > https://comcom.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/329515/MBNZ-Winter-= Report-28-September-2023.pdf >> > >> > While this is evolving to be one of the best of government reports I >> > know of, leveraging samknows rather than ookla, it has >> > a few glaring omissions that I wish someone would address. >> > >> > It does not measure web page load time. This is probably a relative >> > constant across all access technologies, limited only by the closeness >> > of the (latency) to the web serving site(s). >> > >> > It does not break out non-lte, non-5g fixed wireless. I am in touch >> > with multiple companies within NZ that use unlicensed or licensed >> > spectrum such as uber.nz that are quite proud of how competitive they >> > are with fiber. Much of the 5g problem is actually backhaul routing in >> > this report's case. Rural links can also have more latency because of >> > how far away from the central servers they are in the first place, it >> > would be good if future reports did a bit more geo-location to >> > determine how much latency was unavoidable due to the laws of physics. >> > >> > My second biggest kvetch is on figure 16. The differences in latency >> > under load are *directly* correlated to a fixed and overlarge buffer >> > size across all these technologies running at different bandwidths. >> > More speed, at the same buffering =3D less delay. The NetAlyzer resear= ch >> > showed this back in 2011 - so if they re-plotted this data in the way >> > described below - they would derive the same result. Sadly the >> > netalyzer project died due to lack of funding and the closest I have >> > to being able to have a historical record of dslreports variant of the >> > same test is via the internet archive. >> > >> > https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/http://www.dslreports.com/= speedtest/results/bufferbloat?up=3D1 >> > >> > To pick one of those datasets and try to explain them - >> > >> > https://web.archive.org/web/20180323183459/http://www.dslreports.com/s= peedtest/results/bufferbloat?up=3D1 >> > >> > The big blue blobs were the default buffersizes in cable 2018 at those >> > upload speeds. DSL was similar. Fiber historically had saner values >> > for buffering in the first place - but I am seeing bad clusters of >> > 100+ms extra ms at 100Mbit speeds there. >> > >> > dslreports has been dying also, so anything much past 2020 is suspect >> > and even before then, as the site was heavily used by people tuning >> > their SQM/fq_codel/or cake implementations, not representative of the >> > real world, which is worse. The test also cuts off at 4 seconds. This >> > and most speedtests we have today do not include tests that do not >> > complete - which is probably the most important indicator of genuine >> > problems. >> > >> > My biggest kvetch (for decades now) is that none of the tests test up >> > + down + voip or videoconferencing, just sequentially. This is the >> > elephant in the room, the screenshare or upload moment when a home >> > internet gets glitchy, your videoconference freezes or distorts, or >> > your kids scream in frustration at missing their shot in their game. 1 >> > second of induced latency on the upload link makes a web page like >> > slashdot, normally taking >> > 10s, take... wait for it... 4 minutes. This very easily demonstrable >> > to anyone that might disbelieve this.... >> > >> > Despite my advocacy of fancy algorithms like SFQ, fq_codel or cake, >> > the mere adoption across the routers along the edge of a correct FIFO >> > buffersize for the configured bandwidth would help enormously, >> > especially for uploads. We are talking about setting *one* number >> > here correctly for the configured bandwidth. We are not talking about >> > recompiling firmware, either. Just one number, set right. I typically >> > see 1256 packet buffers, where at 10Mbit, not much more than 50 packet >> > buffers is needed. Ideally that gets set in bytes... or replaced with >> > at the very least, SFQ, which has been in linux since 2002. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bo= f.html >> > Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos >> > _______________________________________________ >> > LibreQoS mailing list >> > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net >> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos >> > > > -- > Web: https://jon.brewer.nz/ > Mobile +64 27 502 8230 > DDI: +64 4 913 8123 > --=20 :( My old R&D campus is up for sale: https://tinyurl.com/yurtlab Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos