Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] Fwd: [Make-wifi-fast] make-wifi-fast

[Dave Collier-Brown <dave.collier-Brown@indexexchange.com>]

Since the speed of light is relatively fixed, I wonder if we could come
up with a memorable equation for how much buggering one needs for a
given RTT?

Preferably as memorable as E=MC^2

B <= C / RTT ? (:-))

--dave

On 1/2/23 13:44, Ben Greear via Starlink wrote:
> On 1/2/23 9:35 AM, David Fernández via Starlink wrote:
>> Just wondering how comes that buffering is not standardized. Wondering
>> why buffer sizes are left to implementation decisions of possibly
>> clueless vendors, which devices can worsen the performance of the
>> network.
>
> There is no perfect answer, and every configuration has some trade-off.
>
> It is a long grind of tricky code and careful and widely varied testing
> to make progress in this area.
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
>>
>>> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:00:56 -0500 (EST)
>>> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@deepplum.com>
>>> To: starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] Fwd: [Make-wifi-fast] make-wifi-fast
>>> Message-ID: <1671840056.20758968@mobile.rackspace.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8
>>>
>>> Sorry for front posting. The L2 and L3
>>> are following the "end to end argument". The function of the L2
>>> network is
>>> to not queue more than absolutely necessary.
>>> The function at L3 is to respond to congestion signals by reducing
>>> input to
>>> a fair share of available capacity, quickly, cooperating with other L3
>>> protocols.
>>>
>>> This is understood by clueful L2 and L3 folks.
>>>
>>> Clueless vendors dominate the L2 vendor space. Sadly. They refuse to
>>> stop
>>> over buffering.
>>>
>>>
>>> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 16:02:03 +0100
>>> : David Fernández
>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] Fwd: [Make-wifi-fast] make-wifi-fast
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry, maybe I did not craft the subject correctly. I am receiving the
>>> daily digest of the list, not individual messages.
>>>
>>> I have seen before that the L2 engineers (Wi-Fi, DVB...) and the
>>> Internet engineers (L3) are trying to solve the same issue (QoS,
>>> congestion control) without being aware of what each other are doing
>>> and not even getting coordinated. I am afraid that nowadays we have
>>> even the application layer engineers doing their own stuff (DASH,
>>> CDNs...).
>>>
>>> Some time ago, I worked in a project about cross-layer optimization
>>> techniques for SATCOM systems, where one of the issues was to try to
>>> optimize transport layer performance with L2 info. I was just a mere
>>> observer of what academy people in the consortium where proposing.
>>>
>>> That was quite long ago:
>>> https://artes.esa.int/projects/ipfriendly-crosslayer-optimization-adaptive-satellite-systems
>>>
>>>
>>> Today I came across this:
>>> https://www.elektormagazine.com/news/white-paper-why-wi-fi-6-goes-hand-in-hand-with-cellular-to-enable-the-hyper-connected-enterprise-future
>>>
>>>
>>> "the performance uplift of Wi-Fi 6 over Wi-Fi 5 is substantial and
>>> more than sufficient to support innovative use cases such as automated
>>> guided vehicles, industrial robots and many other applications."
>>>
>>> This sound like Wi-Fi 6 will support low latency and will have a good
>>> QoS support. Maybe...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> 2022-12-21 8:54 GMT+01:00, Sebastian Moeller :
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> See [SM] below.
>>>>
>>>> On 21 December 2022 08:37:27 CET, "David Fernández via Starlink"
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>> What about this?
>>>>> https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-wmm-programs
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't this Wi-Fi MM (Multimedia) supposed to solve Wi-Fi QoS issues?
>>>>
>>>>          [SM] In home network reality it failed to do so. I would
>>>> guess
>>>> partly because the admission control component is optional and as
>>>> far as I
>>>> can tell not available in the usual WiFi routers and APs. A free
>>>> for all
>>>> priority system that in addition diminishes the total achievable
>>>> throughput
>>>> when the higher priority tiers are used introduces at least as much
>>>> QoS
>>>> issues a it solves IMHO. This might be different for 'enterprise WiFi
>>>> gear'
>>>> but I have no experience with that...
>>>>
>>>> Regard
>>>>        Sebastian
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: This feels like you might responded to a different thread
>>>> than the
>>>> iperf2 one we are in right now?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2022 11:04:13 -0800
>>>>>> From: rjmcmahon
>>>>>> To: Sebastian Moeller
>>>>>> Cc: rjmcmahon via Make-wifi-fast
>>>>>>     , Dave Täht
>>>>>>     , Rpm , libreqos
>>>>>>
>>> , Dave Taht via Starlink
>>>>>>     , bloat
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] Fwd: [Make-wifi-fast] make-wifi-fast
>>>>>>     2016 &    crusader
>>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the well-written response Sebastian. I need to think more
>>>>>> about the load vs no load OWD differentials and maybe offer that
>>>>>> as an
>>>>>> integrated test. Thanks for bringing it up (again.) I do think a
>>>>>> low-duty cycle bounceback test to the AP could be interesting too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know of any projects working on iperf 2 & containers but
>>>>>> it has
>>>>>> been suggested as useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>
>
--
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.