Re: [NNagain] A quick report from the WISPA conference

[Robert McMahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3456 bytes --]

A TCP 3WHS may be a better test. It's supported in iperf 2.

⁣A much faster tcp connect() is also a differentiator between wired OSP vs FWA. The TCP_FAST_OPEN (TFO) and the setup aspects of QUIC show that fast early state exchanges are being engineered in, what I consider, non ideal manners. These setup optimizations remind of the PSTN and circuit setups. It seems best the make them low cost and high speed.

Not testing tcp connect() in a robust manner seems a fundamental industry escape.

Bob

On Nov 19, 2023, 3:04 AM, at 3:04 AM, le berger des photons via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>but you can see if it's doing what you want it to and you can compare
>it to
>other products in the same space.
>
>On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 9:31 PM Jack Haverty via Nnagain <
>nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/23 11:27, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote:
>>
>> one of the things we really wished existed was a standardized way to
>> test latency and throughput to routers. It would be super helpful if
>> there was a standard in consumer routers that allowed users to both
>ping
>>  and fetch 0kB fils from their routers, and also run download/upload
>> tests.
>>
>>
>> Back when I was involved in operating a network, we tried to track
>latency
>> and throughput by standard ping and related tests.  We discovered
>that, in
>> addition to the network conditions, the results were often dependent
>on the
>> particular equipment and software involved at the time.   Some
>companies
>> treated ping traffic (e.g., anything directed to the "echo" port) as
>low
>> priority since it was obviously (to them) less important than any
>other
>> traffic.   Others treated such traffic as high priority - it made
>their
>> results in review articles look better.
>>
>> In another case we discovered one brand of desktop computer was
>achieved
>> much higher throughputs over the net than similar products from other
>> manufacturers.  It took some serious technical investigation but we
>> eventually discovered that the high throughput was achieved by
>violating
>> the Ethernet specification.   The offending vendor didn't follow the
>rules
>> about timing.  But their test results looked much better than the
>> competition.
>>
>> IMHO the root of the problem is that you can not assume much about
>what
>> any software and hardware are doing.  There are lots of specs,
>standards,
>> and mandates in RFCs or even governmental rules and regulations.  But
>> lacking any kind of testing or certification, it's difficult to tell
>if
>> those "standards" are actually being followed.  If someone, technical
>> organization or government regulator, declares or legislates some
>protocol,
>> algorithm, or behavior to be a required "standard", it should be
>> accompanied by mechanisms and processes for testing to verify that
>the
>> standard is implemented correctly and is actually used, and
>certification
>> so that purchasers are informed.
>>
>> Jack Haverty
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Nnagain mailing list
>Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4513 bytes --]