From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 222843CB38 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:29:45 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1733768983; x=1734373783; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=9rtUb/HmyvBPq5TP3Wci3gyed9s73HTw+6cnBU22aTY=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:cc: content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id: mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=C2IeSOGJ34dfJ6WEw5OFYugDGEoO/GPEKfhRQwUVYYCLi2i0PLWmDKC3gTO0mXOS ycdlxu1Dnm5RTDPN2/RrYmWmm9dvM89V2l4ffwApIppNtZbqjTsCZSXpUZhrr7gJH +QKaQBZK2YmWHx377IOppwYek12IHlKY0F1vb6ZKbWJojL+lEs47KSssxnxKJiV2X Yvep/x/Xomg63dCd/XzwXywM/oATRhbqHSN8dpoKcZc4Aej3Z8uNndu5OpAf7jkBX 292JT8N0mvakYOvEHxx9hMzoKx9SWwZ0kcYuCOI+9UJDeCN0orr/L34NPAVH0/cpH r0my8GHD1xkLA4gK4g== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([80.187.114.38]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MUXtY-1tBx6V1UrQ-00RrqD; Mon, 09 Dec 2024 19:29:43 +0100 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2024 19:29:38 +0100 From: Sebastian Moeller To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=B4s_mak?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= , Dave Taht via Nnagain User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2FC4966A-530C-4E5B-B82B-544299CB4194@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:5X/7j8tn+wPVkDmrvTi/d1P5BBPc7X1evuhjNeD4xFvSMqfGIpm NcxU6RRW8ZLfDurjhB4TY1V7cjpJ61F0ik7TB1l8DQF9bZxxT+BQ7uoSiJAiLp58tUEtUhn ZjB3keDkRunG0mH7KClwLx6XsULreeuVoOGgscLYR2WbYufwxx7dKYeKCbA11XqhCIv5g6I lqtTaplUj9FabaWUL++qA== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:SrevZMe0S4I=;m9UytZxNnwa40WmaHALYOWBuUId 7XlRMuePoxDK/nKsBvChLF/YJsUeal3RJ1HSLE9DVAztEA+2sB7aULb83vw8xhHOkdYVREXoC Dwq3mVLixbW67CunVcQbIYTjkiSs8ajQmHL+tpC3UL9Kq7MSo6SArzjcvPgxL5XzMc1cVBajF LvZDz/6JPtg8jsojlCvcDN+iwAdkxUMrTQu7zhcQ1Ny4WsYJimYLT0Ccp1ziODwmVXelgKbi1 rHVipcZm9QK5fl2PBi9AJWdMKuVanXd3S9HR2o+SbLX/O1dtO1eOot8UkgZ4NdPLVUSh5EwNC T4lJvVM9xIAIIEY0V0uwRRIPKx/d4/zUVu52SUt9AusGa2hP0g0JXUEy8OO/KuMsopvnNM+c4 yy9kyTE5ImEYDddBbfVYubIp3l60+o7PA0Mlfpi7gBWsv3b9UyW+j9aCNsBON0H6CNI2z4LzM sUh4GZAj/DFQqax2dsqeXiWQWFv1IUg4OvNSR2WsdmJDbcsLaZ+LVan+fSjgJPW4m2ywiMHMm AF7+75Y7DHFo4r/MSxqoMfYEGbwv7zxfSezitQibipy8esT1Z5cWMiTiTzMP4S0waKQIWLKIg K4+5Kt0RhLSCObMjz5OMXOqKkVtgf9EoxfagvQPC17qmmuE1oeilet2CFn+bGVMwy/Yeph/b7 6KZHWAVynb3jNTxMmS9DIk8/yvYjIjQrNShMHHUS62BScxd7nC8HFzmIdHT2YIoOQ1h5/a8ic 5KS1l+78pSLGghWfdmqL57zKF3fBU5ozDU5sOpNChvaZyyRb1y3Tj7ilwKAbMAi31RBCmuJaR wEGXcJ/+szor177L3eq7ShxBOaR4gzzJADckjCWjxZgpeE8XdQfSHpnBpJiDwtFBa/Breg5hm zGoLr8/AUQ3skFH3RTDSibpS19nBRPwSoHX4G3KGDtnSr6IMcOj5X3HAffms6RLnc62pd/jHr kxbFbGdKgy5W0YfQwxEsDN0i4+iN1alHyqinNxZYBU8cWqqcsD6MlNyYnARYnFS5k6dXrANN6 hJvW8I0fwyw9+F/p3tvE8960UpwwNl/uju/NSnULhbcLASyNl9cdYM8E/t8rwqHfQnphCGpWE r2lyc+ERXRZKyeFnnfFGvp3UClG0LS Subject: Re: [NNagain] ntia explicitly excludes latency under load from bead measurements X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2024 18:29:45 -0000 On 9 December 2024 18:42:01 CET, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote: >from: > >https://www=2Entia=2Egov/sites/default/files/2024-12/draft_performance_me= asures_for_bead_last-mile_networks_policy_notice=2Epdf > >"For latency testing, a provider must conduct a minimum of one test >per minute =E2=80=94 60 tests per hour =E2=80=94 for each testing hour=2E= If the >consumer load during a latency test exceeds 200,000 bits per second >downstream,26 the provider may cancel the test and reevaluate whether >the consumer load exceeds 200,000 bits per second downstream before >retrying the test in the next minute=2E" > >w/a 100ms baseline=2E Hilarious=2E Sad=2E [SM] This is not all that terrible for minimal RTT measurements, it does h= owever do zilch for latency under load=2E The 100ms is also not that terrib= le, given that the US is large, think test point in Anchorage reflector in = Miami=2E=2E=2E (I agree this could be more ambitious, but for reference the German regula= tor allows up to 150ms OWD or 300ms RTT, with reflectors mostly in the cent= er (Frankfurt), and Germany is small, with largest distance ~1000km or 10ms= RTT in fiber=2E=2E=2E I would take your 100ms every day ;) ) How about courteously applaud them for taking latency serious and advise t= hem to include additional latency under load tests=2E=2E=2E > >--=20 >Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos >_______________________________________________ >Nnagain mailing list >Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/nnagain --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E