From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E3A73CB35 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 11:50:28 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1639241424; bh=l3h1+T/cpRdSTOhkk4O+x25Dgt41fUznq2Kh3QgyRys=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Jan2iBmIrhnQ8MOFI8dhmHTyXfmNxkPjc9myRRJh8FNNx4ts2n790UwEDx+MV6qgL WUrPojzRZwVdVmrcdqPm4AIumLVhZmKtOkdjeFtUDH1meabpc2eHipXXuWgC11Kh1L QtyFuQaKqmYfrhUtAgSRaRXebynDHjj4DNT5IUBM= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.6.40.96]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MKsnF-1nF00b0i6f-00LBve; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 17:50:24 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 17:50:23 +0100 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Dave_T=C3=A4ht?= , Rpm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7106A7B3-07FF-4D90-83FB-F13B3DB914F2@gmx.de> References: <18B2DB86-D603-4D9A-8E6D-E92093477AA6@gmx.de> To: Matt Mathis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:RPysaROSJHar2rrRQG7/i4wEgAJbt6y9t183yyAGeT65lnA8gPd JjSMj5KNtQgJBWdTVlKIy1nH1sZiogKOCVYSPhIZWXlr71bzgjWRvcoXNu6ONhSEgfis8+V 6II0OnAuVOKkON6aK5HoksL135z5XD7LWgV/hwy+/NF2A7Zn4JUI/05omleP+31b3yjM8E2 lZoXnmcNbJO46/KI8/Wmw== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:o7K7Wp4D6TA=:hw7qKSW+ZWBzwcPVEQKJ7r nJGxSHkK85KxmaRPuzOr0MXmJ1TlLOci2mSt8jCCztepnAL7ESzpr6mXJHRiYp8A5gTx5wOOd R7zAc4/CywspQrAxMdFZHggx/HRW4e1kMlPB8U92RqaoxKpmgCwv3QqGaJiGNlEwCouznY+ka kyU0BGkeNOFLzboLMns4LBQ6yatagt1juXYI9PYuL2bKkn5VbLdmShmS4Vht/JE0LX0hL6WeA b4nIo6IInJ/mEKPUtY5f6AEjaxD8Go2XzWCcEyAh3hS3oB37Dgdhpm2cA4T/T9OFCyaTT+D8a p7egJuVCV2I9fonIdSVmfDMCZAnNvVdc7jwYFwRE3IJq2T1M3iAkpDpa/bYXT8jLYGZLkTHP5 qi3p8Ph2FjZROhLZaKxR0zl8/10oH9VoJTf1SsQ2eVJ4g1LZbHT3DZwPF7IfOXd8pSw2HVKf/ Dzb4mNMMiWhEAa8vqK81kYGI+HH+/ZKqizcJUbx4TWjbRqO8n1Yuz58kbsgQeBK3+m1KEuiI0 6Dro/m3kfOLe+8/PCAQnQunJc9zfpldKhBMPG43WErRmDbRWTBw8RvFl1yzp720XIjTcb+pKk JfQUp2JRriEuCAlp2V3aMaKw5fFb1dVzRcdu4g9zwl7ewM/6FWC/K5k8Q9sKAMUQCf9bVO/9b DrykObAuep2j35/ruoySOnw30elppZOpdNtACL32wn7Ub/6K4kvbW73ZuDhG79RFIgDc+4L1+ +lSuojQzIf5C6lX82OAyJQwlJUHj9BPdpcDOiHfkCPB+hulBZPLYC0gthVnUukfCPhR4kourl b6dhAR4p3xOEwpMgvH4qi783WoTpKfO4vuOdFunny8iG3pb/y0XGmBIFGSubdmVOwUSqoPvSd HOYSjANyMhqUowCVN6deYQpGSH1hzLq8kFQ3qGVMWFK4I5pVUC+6VW8/PAuiXFyIYdjmQTj4e UKKYH6mI+ffafRpRnvopUdcnasBxhs7cxUPPdZEEjPa3nutyBTjpEGIZqW603e6MTbuB0oY+D UYA6QtCIcRSq0nWGq1j96WsCNwQMtoAzQ6uyxWZPQlw691qxpb5oCPBJCuiXIX4IR5ooh2Iw5 sDwaE0Elm1aM/c= Subject: Re: [Rpm] actively measuring owd successfully using icmp X-BeenThere: rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: revolutions per minute - a new metric for measuring responsiveness List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 16:50:28 -0000 Hi Matt, thanks a lot. > On Dec 11, 2021, at 17:25, Matt Mathis wrote: >=20 > icmp_timestamp has not been removed, and in Linux it is still present = in the shared icmp code used by both IPv4 and IPv6. Ah thanks, serves me well for not actually testing; I did = however look into the ICMPv6 RFC and obviously did not notice that this = describes changes from ICMPv4 and that hence the absence of type 13/14 = timestamps in RFC does not mean they are not supported/intended to work. >=20 > More likely a bug that has never been noticed, because nobody bothered = to test it. I note that most icmp documentation doesn't even mention = it's existence. Yes, that is what made me come to the wrong conclusion, thanks = for clearing that up. >=20 > If a kernel bug, most likely a corrupted checksum. But my bet would = be code outright missing from the library. Since I asked before testing, maybe I should test this now, = maybe it just works.... Thanks again & Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > Good luck! >=20 > Thanks, > --MM-- > The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay >=20 > We must not tolerate intolerance; > however our response must be carefully measured:=20 > too strong would be hypocritical and risks spiraling out = of control; > too weak risks being mistaken for tacit approval. >=20 >=20 > On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 5:20 AM Sebastian Moeller via Rpm = wrote: > Two notes. > 1) Technically it is not OWD that is measured, but "OWD + = unknown_offset", but since the goal is to evaluate the delta between the = current delay and a history delay aggregate, the unknown offset does not = matter too much, and as it turns out quite a lot of the tested = reflectors are reasonably well synchronized already (to my utter, utter = surprise). > 2) It appears that ICMPv6 removed the timestamp option, does anybody = here have a link to the discussions that lead to this somewhat = unfortunate decision? >=20 > Best Regards > Sebastian >=20 >=20 > > On Dec 11, 2021, at 13:59, Dave Taht via Rpm = wrote: > >=20 > > Somewhere in this thread the actual working method is buried, but: > >=20 > > https://forum.openwrt.org/t/cake-w-adaptive-bandwidth/108848/944 > >=20 > > --=20 > > I tried to build a better future, a few times: > > https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org > >=20 > > Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC > > _______________________________________________ > > Rpm mailing list > > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Rpm mailing list > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm