[Bloat] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Ajit Pai caves to SpaceX but is still skeptical of Musk's latency claims
Michael Richardson
mcr at sandelman.ca
Sun Jun 14 11:57:26 EDT 2020
David P. Reed <dpreed at deepplum.com> wrote:
>> > The lockdown has shown that actual low-latency e2e communication matters.
>> > The gaming community has known this for awhile.
>>
>> how has the lockdown shown this? video conferencing is seldom e2e
> Well, it's seldom peer-to-peer (and for good reason, the number of
> streams to each endpoint would grow linearly in complexity, if not
> bandwidth, in peer-to-peer implementations of conferencing, and quickly
> become unusable. In principle, one could have the video/audio sources
> transmit multiple resolution versions of their camera/mic capture to
> each destination, and each destination could composite screens and mix
> audio itself, with a tightly coupled "decentralized" control
> algorithm.)
JITSI, whereby, and bluejeans are all p2p for example. There are n+1 webrtc
streams (+1 because server). It's a significantly better experience.
Yes, it doesn't scale to large groups. So what?
My Karate class of ~15 people uses Zoom ... it is TERRIBLE in so many ways.
All that command and control, yet my Sensei can't take a question while demonstrating.
With all the other services, at least I can lock my view on him.
My nieces and my mom and I are not a 100 person conference.
It's more secure, lower latency, more resilient and does not require quite so
much management BS to operate.
> But, nonetheless, the application server architecture of Zoom and WebEx
> are pretty distributed on the conference-server end, though it
> definitely needs higher capacity than each endpoint, And it *is*
> end-to-end at the network level. It would be relatively simple to
> scatter this load out into many more conference-server endpoints,
> because of the basic e2e argument that separates the IP layer from the
> application layer. Blizzard Entertainment pioneered this kind of
> solution - scattering its gaming servers out close to the edge, and did
> so in an "end-to-end" way.
Yup.
> With a system like starlink it seems important to me to distinguish
> peer-to-peer from end-to-end, something I have had a hard time
> explaining to people since 1978 when the first end-to-end arguments had
> their impact on the Internet design. Yes, I'm a big fan of moving
> function to the human-located endpoints where possible. But I also
> fought against multicasting in the routers/switches, because very few
> applications benefit from multi-casting of packets alone by the
> network. Instead, almost all multi-endpoint systems need to coordinate,
> and that coordination is often best done (most scalably) by a network
> of endpoints that do the coordinated functions needed for a
> system.
I see your point. You jump from e2e vs p2p to multicast, and I think that
there might be an intermediate part of the argument that I've missed.
> However, deciding what those functions must be, to put them in
> the basic routers seems basically wrong - it blocks evolution of the
> application functionality, and puts lots of crap in the transport
> network that is at best suboptimal, ,and at worst gets actively in the
> way. (Billing by the packet in each link being the classic example of a
> "feature" that destroyed the Bell System architecture as a useful
> technology).
I'd like to go the other way: while I don't want to bring back the Bell
System architecture, where only the network could innovate, I do think that
being able to bill by the packet is an important feature that I think we now
have the crypto and CPU power to do right.
Consider the affect on spam and DDoS that such a thing would have.
We don't even have to bill for good packets :-)
There could be a bounty that every packet comes from, and if it is rejected,
then the bounty is collected.
>> and starlink will do very well with e2e communications, but the potential
>> bottlenecks (and therefor potential buffering) aren't going to show up in e2e
>> communications, they will show up where lots of endpoints are pulling data from
>> servers not directly connected to starlink.
> I hope neither Starlink or the applications using it choose to
> "optimize" themselves for their first usage. That would be suicidal -
> it's what killed Iridium, which could ONLY carry 14.4 kb/sec per
> connection, by design. Optimized for compressed voice only. That's why
> Negroponte and Papert and I couldn't use it to build 2B1, and went with
> Tachyon, despite Iridium being available for firesale prices and
> Nicholas's being on Motorola's board. Of course 2B1 was way too early
> in the satellite game, back in the 1990's. Interesting story there.
I agree: they need to have the ability to support a variety of services,
particularly ones that we have no clue about.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20200614/f128eb9c/attachment.sig>
More information about the Bloat
mailing list