[Bloat] [EXTERNAL] Re: Terminology for Laypeople

Tue May 18 11:24:48 EDT 2021

Looks cool, I will have to read it more carefully.

I could not tell in a quick scan if this could be used inside of TCP or
QUIC with a suitable message framing.

The point would be an always on application to application lag measurement
that could expose semi-standard measurements to millions of end users, who
could feed suitable commentary to ISP marketing people.

Engineers speaking to engineers don't have enough clout within ISPs to
convince product managers to that buffer bloat is a problem.

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

We must not tolerate intolerance;
       however our response must be carefully measured:
            too strong would be hypocritical and risks spiraling out of
control;
            too weak risks being mistaken for tacit approval.

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:31 PM Neil Davies <neil.davies at pnsol.com> wrote:

> Matt
>
> This is such a great idea that the Broadband Forum has been working on it
> for a couple of years now - see TR452.1
> https://www.broadband-forum.org/download/TR-452.1.pdf - it is being
> actively worked on, it can exploit existing infrastructures (such equipment
> that supports STAMP etc), it doesn’t need accurate clocks (just reasonable
> precision), it can be used both end-to-end and hop-by-hop (using the same
> measurement stream) and it has a formal mathematical basis (which has a
> whole host of benefits that companies are starting to exploit).
>
> Neil
>
> On 17 May 2021, at 22:27, Matt Mathis via Bloat <
> bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> I just got a cool idea: I wonder if it is original....?
>
> Write or adapt a spec based on "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol"
> (OWAMP - RFC4656), as an application layer LAG metric.   Suitably framed
> OWAMP messages could be injected as close as possible to the socket write
> in the sending applications, and decoded as close as possible to the
> receiving application's read, independent of all other protocol details.
>
> This could expose lag, latency and jitter in a standardized way, that can
> be reported by the applications and replicated by measurement diagnostics
> that can be compared apples-to-apples.  The default data collection should
> probably be histograms of one way delays.
>
> This would expose problematic delays in all parts of the stack, including
> excess socket buffers, etc.
>
> This could be adapted to any application protocol that has an appropriate
> framing layer, including ndt7.
>
> Thanks,
> --MM--
> The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay
>
> We must not tolerate intolerance;
>        however our response must be carefully measured:
>             too strong would be hypocritical and risks spiraling out of
> control;
>             too weak risks being mistaken for tacit approval.
>
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 4:14 AM Jonathan Morton <chromatix99 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 13 May, 2021, at 12:10 am, Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> But, I'm looking for terminology that I can use with my mother-in-law.
>>
>>
>> Here's a slide I used a while ago, which seems to be relevant here:
>>
>> <fast-quick.001.png>
>>
>> The important thing about the term "quick" in this context is that
>> throughput capacity can contribute to it in some circumstances, but is
>> mostly irrelevant in others.  For small requests, throughput is irrelevant
>> and quickness is a direct result of low latency.
>>
>> For a grandmother-friendly analogy, consider what you'd do if you wanted
>> milk for your breakfast cereal, but found the fridge was empty.  The ideal
>> solution to this problem would be to walk down the road to the village shop
>> and buy a bottle of milk, then walk back home.  That might take about ten
>> minutes - reasonably "quick".  It might take twice that long if you have to
>> wait for someone who wants to scratch off a dozen lottery tickets right at
>> the counter while paying by cheque; it's politer for such people to step
>> out of the way.
>>
>> My village doesn't have a shop, so that's not an option.  But I've seen
>> dairy tankers going along the main road, so I could consider flagging one
>> of them down.  Most of them ignore the lunatic trying to do that, and the
>> one that does (five hours later) decides to offload a thousand gallons of
>> milk instead of the pint I actually wanted, to make it worth his while.
>> That made rather a mess of my kitchen and was quite expensive.  Dairy
>> tankers are set up for "fast" transport of milk - high throughput, not
>> optimised for latency.
>>
>> The non-lunatic alternative would be to get on my bicycle and go to the
>> supermarket in town.  That takes about two hours, there and back.  It takes
>> me basically the same amount of time to fetch that one bottle of milk as it
>> would to conduct a full shopping trip, and I can't reduce that time at all
>> without upgrading to something faster than a bicycle, or moving house to
>> somewhere closer to town.  That's latency for you.
>>
>>  - Jonathan Morton
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bloat mailing list
>> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20210518/86495d5b/attachment.html>