<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Has any ISP or regulatory body set a standard for latency necessary
to support interactive uses? <br>
<br>
It seems to me that a 2+ second delay is way too high, and even if
it happens only occasionally, users may set up their systems to
assume it may happen and compensate for it by ading their own
buffering at the endpoints and thereby reduce embarassing glitches.
Maybe this explains those long awkward pauses you commonly see when
TV interviewers are trying to have a conversation with someone at a
remote site via Zoom, Skype, et al.<br>
<br>
In the early Internet days we assumed there would be a need for
multiple types of service, such as a "bulk transfer" and
"interactive", similar to analogs in the non-electronic transport
systems (e.g., Air Freight versus Container Ship). The "Type Of
Service" field was put in the IP header as a placeholder for such
mechanisms to be added to networks in the future,<br>
<br>
Of course if network capacity is truly unlimited there would be no
need now to provide different types of service. But these latency
numbers suggest that users' traffic demands are still sometimes
exceeding network capacities. Some of the network traffic is
associated with interactive uses, and other traffic is doing tasks
such as backups to some cloud. Treating them uniformly seems like
bad engineering as well as bad policy.<br>
<br>
I'm still not sure whether or not "network neutrality" regulations
would preclude offering different types of service, if the technical
mechanisms even implement such functionality.<br>
<br>
Jack<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/27/24 14:00, rjmcmahon via Nnagain
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:69133641c96091ed047e6bf11a2ff5d7@rjmcmahon.com">
<blockquote type="cite">Interesting blog post on the latency part
at
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://broadbandbreakfast.com/untitled-12/">https://broadbandbreakfast.com/untitled-12/</a>.
<br>
<br>
Looking at the FCC draft report, page 73, Figure 24 – I find it
sort
<br>
of ridiculous that the table describes things as “Low Latency
<br>
Service” available or not. That is because they seem to really
<br>
misunderstand the notion of working latency. The table instead
seems
<br>
to classify any network with idle latency <100 ms to be low
latency
<br>
– which as Dave and others close to bufferbloat know is silly.
Lots
<br>
of these networks that are in this report classified as low
latency
<br>
would in fact have working latencies of 100s to 1,000s of
milliseconds
<br>
– far from low latency.
<br>
<br>
I looked at FCC MBA platform data from the last 6 months and
here are
<br>
the latency under load stats, 99th percentile for a selection of
ten
<br>
ISPs:
<br>
ISP A 2470 ms
<br>
<br>
ISP B 2296 ms
<br>
<br>
ISP C 2281 ms
<br>
<br>
ISP D 2203 ms
<br>
<br>
ISP E 2070 ms
<br>
<br>
ISP F 1716 ms
<br>
<br>
ISP G 1468 ms
<br>
<br>
ISP H 965 ms
<br>
<br>
ISP I 909 ms
<br>
<br>
ISP J 896 ms
<br>
<br>
Jason
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It does seem like there is a lot of confusion around idle latency
vs working latency. Another common error is to conflate round trip
time as two "one way delays." OWD & RTT are different metrics
and both have utility. (all of this, including working-loads, is
supported in iperf 2 -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://iperf2.sourceforge.io/iperf-manpage.html">https://iperf2.sourceforge.io/iperf-manpage.html</a> - so there is
free tooling out there that can help.)
<br>
<br>
Bob
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Nnagain mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net">Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>