[Rpm] Fwd: Airbnb

[Rpm] Fwd: Airbnb

[Dave Taht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1075 bytes --]

Airbnb internet metric:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Simon Barber (sibarber) <sibarber@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 9:58 AM
Subject: Airbnb
To: dave.taht@gmail.com <dave.taht@gmail.com>


https://news.airbnb.com/new-tool-check-the-wifi-speed-in-your-airbnb-listing-before-you-book/
<https://news.airbnb.com/new-tool-check-the-wifi-speed-in-your-airbnb-listing-before-you-book/>
New tool: Check the wifi speed in your Airbnb listing before you book
<https://news.airbnb.com/new-tool-check-the-wifi-speed-in-your-airbnb-listing-before-you-book/>
As the growing flexibility to work and live from anywhere continues, being
able to determine a listing’s wifi speed before booking is a must-have for
digital nomads, remote workers, roadschoolers, traveling families, gamers,
and creatives alike.
news.airbnb.com


Wish they measured latency under load to give you a better score of your
wifi experience!

Simon



-- 
Fixing Starlink's Latencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9gLo6Xrwgw

Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4919 bytes --]

Re: [Rpm] Airbnb

[oesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1642 bytes --]

It’s a step forward.

> On Aug 7, 2021, at 11:57 AM, Dave Taht via Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Airbnb internet metric:
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Simon Barber (sibarber) <sibarber@cisco.com <mailto:sibarber@cisco.com>>
> Date: Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 9:58 AM
> Subject: Airbnb
> To: dave.taht@gmail.com <mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com> <dave.taht@gmail.com <mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com>>
> 
> 
> https://news.airbnb.com/new-tool-check-the-wifi-speed-in-your-airbnb-listing-before-you-book/ <https://news.airbnb.com/new-tool-check-the-wifi-speed-in-your-airbnb-listing-before-you-book/>
>  <https://news.airbnb.com/new-tool-check-the-wifi-speed-in-your-airbnb-listing-before-you-book/>	
> New tool: Check the wifi speed in your Airbnb listing before you book <https://news.airbnb.com/new-tool-check-the-wifi-speed-in-your-airbnb-listing-before-you-book/>
> As the growing flexibility to work and live from anywhere continues, being able to determine a listing’s wifi speed before booking is a must-have for digital nomads, remote workers, roadschoolers, traveling families, gamers, and creatives alike.
> news.airbnb.com <http://news.airbnb.com/>
> 
> Wish they measured latency under load to give you a better score of your wifi experience!
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Fixing Starlink's Latencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9gLo6Xrwgw <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9gLo6Xrwgw>
> 
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC 
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm mailing list
> Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6142 bytes --]

Re: [Rpm] [Bloat] Fwd: Airbnb

[Livingood, Jason]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2738 bytes --]

Unfortunately this is not an aggregate capacity test but a single connection test so I don’t think AirBnB selected a test that is matched to the question their prospective guests are interested in. That test certainly has it’s uses as a diagnostic tool but perhaps not to say how fast someone’s Internet access may be. There’s a recent MIT paper about this that is worth reading: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3898339

Jason

From: Bloat <bloat-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 14:57
To: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>, "rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net" <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: [Bloat] Fwd: Airbnb


Airbnb internet metric:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Simon Barber (sibarber) <sibarber@cisco.com<mailto:sibarber@cisco.com>>
Date: Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 9:58 AM
Subject: Airbnb
To: dave.taht@gmail.com<mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com> <dave.taht@gmail.com<mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com>>

https://news.airbnb.com/new-tool-check-the-wifi-speed-in-your-airbnb-listing-before-you-book/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/news.airbnb.com/new-tool-check-the-wifi-speed-in-your-airbnb-listing-before-you-book/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VTUwXktLLqNXRj-gEje6JJkPrB5OhFHjknshJBElHMhGQ6TchlJ8TZBTgLaFS_0dFXbgJA$>
[https://news.airbnb.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/07/PJM013418Q316-Garden_Home-05671_JL1.jpg?fit=2500%2C16671zT%01]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/news.airbnb.com/new-tool-check-the-wifi-speed-in-your-airbnb-listing-before-you-book/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VTUwXktLLqNXRj-gEje6JJkPrB5OhFHjknshJBElHMhGQ6TchlJ8TZBTgLaFS_0dFXbgJA$>

New tool: Check the wifi speed in your Airbnb listing before you book<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/news.airbnb.com/new-tool-check-the-wifi-speed-in-your-airbnb-listing-before-you-book/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VTUwXktLLqNXRj-gEje6JJkPrB5OhFHjknshJBElHMhGQ6TchlJ8TZBTgLaFS_0dFXbgJA$>
As the growing flexibility to work and live from anywhere continues, being able to determine a listing’s wifi speed before booking is a must-have for digital nomads, remote workers, roadschoolers, traveling families, gamers, and creatives alike.
news.airbnb.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/news.airbnb.com__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VTUwXktLLqNXRj-gEje6JJkPrB5OhFHjknshJBElHMhGQ6TchlJ8TZBTgLaFS_0tQZGSxg$>



Wish they measured latency under load to give you a better score of your wifi experience!

Simon



--
Fixing Starlink's Latencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9gLo6Xrwgw<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9gLo6Xrwgw__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VTUwXktLLqNXRj-gEje6JJkPrB5OhFHjknshJBElHMhGQ6TchlJ8TZBTgLaFS_3mNqtomQ$>

Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8736 bytes --]

Re: [Rpm] [Bloat] Airbnb

[Livingood, Jason]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4766 bytes --]

Great news, Matt! If I may make a recommendation, IMO a standalone working latency test would have greater utility than integrating such a measurement into an existing test & so it may have the opportunity of more widespread usage.

JL

From: Bloat <bloat-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of Matt Mathis via Bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Reply-To: Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 00:52
To: "dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com" <dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com>
Cc: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] Airbnb

I am part of the M-Lab team.

For years we published a "jitter" metric that I considered to be bogus, basically max_rtt - min_rtt, (which were builtin Web100 instruments).

In 2019, we transitioned from web100 to "standard" linux tcp_info, which does not capture max_rtt.   Since the web100 jitter was viewed as bogus, we did not attempt to reconstruct it, although we could have.   Designing and implementing a new latency metric was on my todo list from the beginning of that transition, but chronically preempted by more pressing problems.

It finally made it to the top of my queue which is why I am suddenly not lurking here and the new rpm list.  I was very happy to see the Apple responsiveness metric, and realized that M-Lab can implement a TCP version of it, that can be computed both in real time on future tests and retroactively over archived tests collected over the last 12 years.

This quick paper might be of interest: Preliminary Longitudinal Study of Internet Responsiveness<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HkeJTgwLdbbdHe0dF9SWrpr8Vt7ngnovLpdDTScuUtk/edit*heading=h.sy6m01i6oa9a__;Iw!!CQl3mcHX2A!WTavRmT2GnSUSVpvPCPdmBuNtOJI_zDP1WOHE-jy8tMiXBE-CxDospZUjNote1PXn0DhWQ$>
.
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, Aug 9, 2021 at 5:27 PM Dave Collier-Brown <dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com<mailto:dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com>> wrote:

Knowing programmers, I'd more likely assume latency when it's easiest to measure. At a guess, either

  *   average of upload or download
  *   average of download (as it comes first)

--dave (call me "Wally" (:-)) c-b



On 2021-08-09 4:24 p.m., Jonathan Morton wrote:

On 9 Aug, 2021, at 10:25 pm, Dave Collier-Brown <dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com><mailto:dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com> wrote:



My run of it reported latency, but without any qualifiers...

One would reasonable assume that's idle latency, then.



 - Jonathan Morton

_______________________________________________

Bloat mailing list

Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>

https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!WTavRmT2GnSUSVpvPCPdmBuNtOJI_zDP1WOHE-jy8tMiXBE-CxDospZUjNote1Oa4DQV1Q$>

--

David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify

System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest

dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com<mailto:dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com> |              -- Mark Twain


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER : This telecommunication, including any and all attachments, contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any dissemination, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of confidentiality. If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and delete the message from your inbox and deleted items folders. This telecommunication does not constitute an express or implied agreement to conduct transactions by electronic means, nor does it constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment or an acceptance of a contract offer. Contract terms contained in this telecommunication are subject to legal review and the completion of formal documentation and are not binding until same is confirmed in writing and has been signed by an authorized signatory.
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!WTavRmT2GnSUSVpvPCPdmBuNtOJI_zDP1WOHE-jy8tMiXBE-CxDospZUjNote1Oa4DQV1Q$>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12182 bytes --]

Re: [Rpm] [Bloat] Airbnb

[Matt Mathis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6301 bytes --]

I think you misunderstood:  The metric that I am testing can be computed in
real time within the current NDT (the only wire change is to carry an
additional result in the progress reports) and across our entire archive,
including both web100 and tcp_info data.  Furthermore it can be
validated/calibrated by counting actual network rounds, reconstructed from
packet captures.  However it does not include the OS contribution, which
can have a huge impact on the responsiveness seen by the user.

The MIT paper boosts another item that has been on my forever todo list:
add automated diagnostic analysis to NDT.  Ideally, NDT could localize the
bottleneck:

   - Client (e.g. insufficient CPU or buffers)
   - Last yard (WiFi)
   - Last  Mile (Access provider)
   - Middle mile (Interconnects)
   - Server load

(The original NDT did a limited version of something like this.  Most of
the above have well known signatures, except there are some really
weird corner cases.)   We could then better inform the user ("Fix your
WiFi"), and label the data in the archive according to the nature of the
likely bottleneck.


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 Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:59 AM Livingood, Jason <
Jason_Livingood@comcast.com> wrote:

> Great news, Matt! If I may make a recommendation, IMO a standalone working
> latency test would have greater utility than integrating such a measurement
> into an existing test & so it may have the opportunity of more widespread
> usage.
>
>
>
> JL
>
>
>
> *From: *Bloat <bloat-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of Matt
> Mathis via Bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> *Reply-To: *Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 00:52
> *To: *"dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com" <
> dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com>
> *Cc: *bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] Airbnb
>
>
>
> I am part of the M-Lab team.
>
>
>
> For years we published a "jitter" metric that I considered to be bogus,
> basically max_rtt - min_rtt, (which were builtin Web100 instruments).
>
>
>
> In 2019, we transitioned from web100 to "standard" linux tcp_info, which
> does not capture max_rtt.   Since the web100 jitter was viewed as bogus, we
> did not attempt to reconstruct it, although we could have.   Designing and
> implementing a new latency metric was on my todo list from the beginning of
> that transition, but chronically preempted by more pressing problems.
>
>
>
> It finally made it to the top of my queue which is why I am suddenly not
> lurking here and the new rpm list.  I was very happy to see the Apple
> responsiveness metric, and realized that M-Lab can implement a TCP
> version of it, that can be computed both in real time on future tests and
> retroactively over archived tests collected over the last 12 years.
>
>
>
> This quick paper might be of interest: *Preliminary Longitudinal Study of
> Internet Responsiveness*
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1HkeJTgwLdbbdHe0dF9SWrpr8Vt7ngnovLpdDTScuUtk/edit*heading=h.sy6m01i6oa9a__;Iw!!CQl3mcHX2A!WTavRmT2GnSUSVpvPCPdmBuNtOJI_zDP1WOHE-jy8tMiXBE-CxDospZUjNote1PXn0DhWQ$>
>
> .
>
> Thanks,
>
> --MM--
> The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay
>
> We must not tolerate intolerance;
>
>        however our response must be carefully measured:
>
>             too strong would be hypocritical and risks spiraling out of
> control;
>
>             too weak risks being mistaken for tacit approval.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 5:27 PM Dave Collier-Brown <
> dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com> wrote:
>
> Knowing programmers, I'd more likely assume latency when it's easiest to
> measure. At a guess, either
>
>    - average of upload or download
>    - average of download (as it comes first)
>
> --dave (call me "Wally" (:-)) c-b
>
>
>
> On 2021-08-09 4:24 p.m., Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
> On 9 Aug, 2021, at 10:25 pm, Dave Collier-Brown <dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com> <dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> My run of it reported latency, but without any qualifiers...
>
> One would reasonable assume that's idle latency, then.
>
>
>
>  - Jonathan Morton
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Bloat mailing list
>
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
>
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!WTavRmT2GnSUSVpvPCPdmBuNtOJI_zDP1WOHE-jy8tMiXBE-CxDospZUjNote1Oa4DQV1Q$>
>
> --
>
> David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
>
> System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
>
> dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com |              -- Mark Twain
>
>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER** : This telecommunication,
> including any and all attachments, contains confidential information
> intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any dissemination,
> distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a
> waiver of confidentiality. If you have received this telecommunication in
> error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and
> delete the message from your inbox and deleted items folders. This
> telecommunication does not constitute an express or implied agreement to
> conduct transactions by electronic means, nor does it constitute a contract
> offer, a contract amendment or an acceptance of a contract offer. Contract
> terms contained in this telecommunication are subject to legal review and
> the completion of formal documentation and are not binding until same is
> confirmed in writing and has been signed by an authorized signatory.*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!WTavRmT2GnSUSVpvPCPdmBuNtOJI_zDP1WOHE-jy8tMiXBE-CxDospZUjNote1Oa4DQV1Q$>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10876 bytes --]