[Cerowrt-devel] Fixing bufferbloat: How about an open letter to the web benchmarkers?
dpreed at reed.com
dpreed at reed.com
Thu Sep 11 20:31:40 EDT 2014
I will sign. It would be better if we had an actual demonstration of how to implement a speedtest improvement.
On Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:03pm, "Dave Taht" <dave.taht at gmail.com> said:
> The theme of networks being "engineered for speedtest" has been a
> common thread in nearly every conversation I've had with ISPs and
> vendors using every base technology out there, be it dsl, cable,
> ethernet, or fiber, for the last 4 years. Perhaps, in pursuing better
> code, and RFCs, and the like, we've been going about fixing
> bufferbloat the wrong way.
> If Verizon can petition the FCC to change the definition of
> broadband... why can't we petition speedtest to *change their test*?
> Switching to merely reporting the 98th percentile results for ping
> during an upload or download, instead of the baseline ping, would be a
> vast improvement on what happens today, and no doubt we could suggest
> other improvements.
> What if we could publish an open letter to the benchmark makers such
> as speedtest, explaining how engineering for their test does *not*
> make for a better internet? The press fallout from that letter, would
> improve some user education, regardless if we could get the tests
> changed or not.
> Who here would sign?
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling
> <joel at aenertia.net> wrote:
> > I have been heavily involved with the UFB (Ultrafast Broadband) PON
> > deployment here in New Zealand.
> > I am not sure how the regulated environment is playing out in Canada
> > (I am moving there in a month so I guess I will find out). But here
> > the GPON architecture is METH based and Layer2 only. Providers (RSP's)
> > are the ones responsible for asking for Handoffer buffer tweaks to the
> > LFC(local fibre companies; the layer 0-2 outfits-) which have mandated
> > targets for Latency (at most 4.5ms) accross their PON Access networks
> > to the Handover port.
> > Most of the time this has been to 'fix' Speedtest.net TCP based
> > results to report whatever Marketed service (100/30 For example) is in
> > everyones favourite site speedtest.net.
> > This has meant at least for the Chorus LFC regions where they use
> > Alcatel-Lucent 7450's as the handover/aggregation switches we have
> > deliberately introduced buffer bloat to please the RSP's - who
> > otherwise get whingy about customers whinging about speedtest not
> > showing 100/30mbit. Of course user education is 'too hard' .
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cerowrt-devel