From: Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com>
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Cc: "Dave Täht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>, Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Rpm] actively measuring owd successfully using icmp
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 08:25:35 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH56bmC=V43YLyNsS8KykSgw3ixizW3qzF0R6hO6im7yBMZFPg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18B2DB86-D603-4D9A-8E6D-E92093477AA6@gmx.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2150 bytes --]
icmp_timestamp has not been removed, and in Linux it is still present in
the shared icmp code used by both IPv4 and IPv6.
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.
If a kernel bug, most likely a corrupted checksum. But my bet would be
code outright missing from the library.
Good luck!
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 Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 5:20 AM Sebastian Moeller via Rpm <
rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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?
>
> Best Regards
> Sebastian
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 2021, at 13:59, Dave Taht via Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Somewhere in this thread the actual working method is buried, but:
> >
> > https://forum.openwrt.org/t/cake-w-adaptive-bandwidth/108848/944
> >
> > --
> > I tried to build a better future, a few times:
> > https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org
> >
> > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rpm mailing list
> > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm mailing list
> Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3447 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-11 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-11 12:59 Dave Taht
2021-12-11 13:19 ` Sebastian Moeller
2021-12-11 16:25 ` Matt Mathis [this message]
2021-12-11 16:50 ` Sebastian Moeller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/rpm.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAH56bmC=V43YLyNsS8KykSgw3ixizW3qzF0R6hO6im7yBMZFPg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=mattmathis@google.com \
--cc=dave.taht@gmail.com \
--cc=moeller0@gmx.de \
--cc=rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox