From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mail.toke.dk; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sandelman.ca; dkim=pass header.d=sandelman.ca; arc=none (Message is not ARC signed); dmarc=none Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) by mail.toke.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48006704C8A for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2025 00:58:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272F71800D for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:58:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id lhb1Pri-GZXn for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:58:23 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1759100303; bh=D8/3pA1/1IaEnvVhhx5mCo/UUXLnKYuWUqnDAfW8+Po=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=hBkbCH2dwvSG+iwEBbz9IJBmiFLBR1ZLzifrQKWgN+WG6TEseVKWxTcTlHLNlb7F6 PNGqK2iysXR54AvNX24M2Z2SOyPijAXt4PFpGvDPq+H31u3QTrWTiOuRAVsc8ugUNH 0HNWTUOqxCXQUFed/73hfrKjQElzFp6XgBxCOefKikFd8+kP2fQiVDciePPYuGkR+o PuWHgUfNq9sSzXo3ac1ZGO4XCEPIMrq3cEasDzr9jXwUn5pTUJf3o0ISFoTDUa8BCE IrTlWm8FCM4HR8acFwcDPqtuyUcTXHPceGU+XZmmZCv5+N6ZqRRMdu+Oqwe4AU+94b QFswzz4R7xNbQ== Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:b241:6fff:fe09:a92b]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D041800C for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:58:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8272A200 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2025 18:58:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <175909842257.1555.851927488987629950@gauss> References: <175909842257.1555.851927488987629950@gauss> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0;<'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Message-ID-Hash: 2MEILIE4Z2OKT2MJ7NWFZNVPDC43RM4W X-Message-ID-Hash: 2MEILIE4Z2OKT2MJ7NWFZNVPDC43RM4W X-MailFrom: mcr@sandelman.ca X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list Subject: [Starlink] Re: Starlink Digest, Vol 53, Issue 14 List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sebastian Moeller via Starlink wrote: > I fully agree and am quite puzzled to find zero references in the SCO= NE > draft for any experiments, let alone successful ones that demonstrate > the value SCONE might deliver. > In my world one starts with such experiments and only writes an > internet draft if these experiments demonstrated that an idea has legs > to stand on. I regularly attend the SCONE virtual interim meetings. I think that there is more occuring than is being published, and I think th= at the candidate TRONE and TRAIN and (was there a 3rd?) ideas did have some spike solutions created. but, back to my original question: is there sufficient feedback in the *starlink* datapath from downlink'ing Satellite, through ISL, to Ground Station about the actual experienced congestion such that either: a) packets could be dropped before wasting satellite capacity b) SCONE (or another mark, including L4S, whether you believe it or not), could be applied? How much does that available bandwidth vary during each of the 15minute attachments? -- Michael Richardson . o O ( IPv6 I=C3=B8T consulti= ng ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide