[Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem

David Fernández davidfdzp at gmail.com
Thu Jun 6 03:07:17 EDT 2024


Hi Sebastian,

You are welcome! Your ISP seems to take the maximum limit also for RTT for
RDP recommended by Microsoft users (300 ms RTT):
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-technet-forums/165af0fb-b3f0-469f-bc67-548fa26da266
The good quality threshold for Remote Desktop could be 150 ms RTT.

I find it risky to work so much close to the threshold of quality becoming
bad for services, but they may have money based reasons to do that.
There is also no point on going better than the threshold of it being good,
as mentioned here (it is wasteful):
https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/fi/solutions/test-and-measurement/mobile-network-testing/network-performance-score/network-performance-score_250678.html#video-rs-636544

Regards,

David F.

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 18:23, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> Thanks!
>
> > On 5. Jun 2024, at 17:16, David Fernández via Starlink <
> starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sebastian,
> >
> > " Our local regulator thinks that 150 ms access network OWD (so
> 300msRTT) is acceptable"
> >
> > Your local regulator is following ITU-T advice in Recommendation G.114,
> where it is said that up to 150 ms one-way delay is acceptable for
> telephony.
>
> [SM] Yes that is one of their sources for VoIP, and I already started to
> find the original studies as I am not convinced the interpretation in 114
> is the only possible or even best, after all Telcos had a clear use-case
> transatlantic phone calls that they did want to survive as possible in good
> quality...
>
> But the regulator also argues the same 300ms RTT for remote desktop
> applications... any data showing what latency is acceptable for specific
> use cases is appreciated. (And I am open for the option that my hunch that
> 300ms is too much might be wrong).
>
> Regards
>         Sebastian
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > David F.
> >
> > Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:10:26 +0200
> > From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de>
> > To: David Lang <david at lang.hm>
> > Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu at gmail.com>, Dave Taht via
> >         Starlink <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>
> > Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem
> > Message-ID: <C1BCE67C-E4D3-4626-B9FB-1AD35C8D93CD at gmx.de>
> > Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> >
> > > On 5. Jun 2024, at 16:16, David Lang via Starlink <
> starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> > >
> > >> Le 05/06/2024 à 15:40, Gert Doering a écrit :
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 03:28:45PM +0200, Alexandre Petrescu via
> Starlink
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>> well, ok.  One day the satcom latency will be so low that we will
> not have
> > >>>> enough requirements for its use :-)
> > >>> Your disbelief in physics keeps amazing me :-)
> > >>
> > >> sorry :-)  Rather than simply 'satcom' I should have said
> satcom-haps-planes-drones.  I dont have a name for that.
> > >
> > > you would be better off with plans that don't require beating the
> speed of light. Yes, quantum entanglement may be a path to beat the speed
> of light, but you still need the electronics to handle it, and have the
> speed of sound at temperatures and pressures that humans can live at as a
> restriction.
> > >
> > > by comparison to your 1ms latency goals, extensive AT&T phone testing
> decades ago showed that 100ms was the threshold where people could start to
> detect a delay.
> >
> > Would you have any pointer for that study/those studies? Our local
> regulator thinks that 150 ms access network OWD (so 300msRTT) is acceptable
> and I am trying to find studies that can shed a light on what acceptable
> delay is for different kind of interactive tasks. (Spoiler alert, I am not
> convinced that 300ms RTT is a great idea, I forced my self to remote
> desktop with artificial 300ms delay and it was not fun, but not totaly
> unusable either, but then human can adapt and steer high inertia vehicles
> like loaded container ships...)
> >
> > Sorry for the tangent...
> >
> > Regards
> >         Sebastian
> >
> > P.S.: Dave occasionally reminds us how 'slow' in comparison the speed of
> sound is ~343 m/second (depending on conditions) or 343/1000 = 0.343
> m/millisecond that is even at a distance of 1 meter delay will be at a 3
> ms... and when talking to folks 10m away it is not the delay that is
> annoying, but the fact that you have to raise your voice considerably...
> >
> > >
> > > David Lang_______________________________________________
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list
> > Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20240606/6aa91d3c/attachment.html>


More information about the Starlink mailing list