From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (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 2FE753B2A4 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:23:25 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1717604603; x=1718209403; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=fUYA/UFdzpXB7uXGvSAG+ivimLOJrJtZAFVe6UR+ETM=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From: In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id: References:To:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from: message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=JxPmzaJ6nJmFjbx1uLnp+CMbYtWhl1/Ie/pOwGx5XFPWIO54jXn0Hp4wevHOREV8 mnRGJyfD7YW6UdyL4sz0pMIcDLsA5wMTJMhpN002WvS5//1gk68x/plITXQU+uUKv tkuen+58aZ9kcLPgOP95Yfr6t16Q+6kVe1d54Bkuortuj4ujwb8WtoZrtNMRtZGDx qZifcgEMk2qoXNU9KVoJhWZ/z2fdMfz/eJvo9ZflIx4H/iOMgl9LlaBvyENXYEmQT r/OP33VLVXD6Aa2f7hEdrK42jG01IvHo9AMl0UrJAqxdyGy784fHZOIxoDktsel3Q NKCk78D8nUhoG1ht7w== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([95.116.173.22]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N6siz-1sWBEq28nH-00sPMS; Wed, 05 Jun 2024 18:23:23 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.600.62\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 18:23:12 +0200 Cc: starlink Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4EC4AA2A-3B4D-4638-B515-92FC0EEC604F@gmx.de> References: To: =?utf-8?Q?David_Fern=C3=A1ndez?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.600.62) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:rK2l6rLD3xYiShrZj1Q4Wg8/ySrzYL2alpKH7LajJmba4tWlMm5 fmMXE+9vW/8iKVCg/N/APYD5jsroILzPZy2ue4EnBOQ/tiDbDgK2PMYvrmbIfcY1hrMWPNQ yab8PT3cG91rqoyERPBTORUxFrFW1yiDHwxMXHP9c42dM7/xDmop5eL6+D5CYKMBtLOnaIx 6irQMZBk2RWp4Si/Sk4Uw== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:CvQI90lN97E=;6tIpPiHneEbqYNA14CmJwFM6DNh Ax+qepOHvD2FDDnht2Ma6h33SvWDbqng/ny1t8tWUSy/ayYVYvWGE8v0kEct1yDlwsT8hszeG gGNxxc0zXKnNULtUafMLmBkfzBtScq8HiB5AouLzAtKwDScu5wZagelMdpt/YrlbySULP5S/K rckxQuYjy8Hq96tcHY8wqUyZIKyfDxsg1O3n87zxo1stR+jYPAUGCG0igTmDs1hYXKsw+WU83 jWuqsAXk+jiBnSRSeUsCGm3pteVYgl68RvZRRhWQFWnnV8Tzjn2kdKgSEMGJRkYz60RSXfkbc uEwTGTZ9q0APv7GTVU1tQNSBsjN94sSLx+Wiixh7+okyMgE3UXpy0gyDU/2xzn+ZHCpwyYP3/ s4a1HcCxbObb03zwF0bYaWFfLjLhukx/07bdljrd8DUVIcLzBzKRBpyqNDfClKg3HwEvSAhfF WzLqgpzNIM0W1QNGFpzOluHuTW+Q0nvGXbIJaeeIue/k4TWje0Un2huCtmukAN1BuZxRiG4rV 4P50V3orEFKketJ/shtPP+oGt1LweEcgvo+3fd0PdDX+T8ySZiKtmBGf5Cr0s/XrJLSmjRu4r NGFTQxEURBUkCIdFn0eQLRiBU7ZemsvtjEp4ehNM8srDI2Xz0nxZqQJwiuwoFplAoYZsAz/Ym sAlglqYQlRWG2EuX0ziANLo+GbVFuc1U1+/q2TCIi91mUVSaULNwmBvPtMM1sGPheOewcn0qK T00/9XTdZ0mURaZa672dEtdziHFOnqgNZJKsZaj5FRjsXhJDq0mRX3g0hPzP3td7pnTPd8GAt nTUcO5KIJMow2DJ4jRgaygSRpe5qSNsPJWtodZBgthJNY= Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 16:23:25 -0000 Hi David, Thanks! > On 5. Jun 2024, at 17:16, David Fern=C3=A1ndez via Starlink = wrote: >=20 > Hi Sebastian, >=20 > " Our local regulator thinks that 150 ms access network OWD (so = 300msRTT) is acceptable" >=20 > Your local regulator is following ITU-T advice in Recommendation = G.114, where it is said that up to 150 ms one-way delay is acceptable = for telephony. [SM] Yes that is one of their sources for VoIP, and I already started to = find the original studies as I am not convinced the interpretation in = 114 is the only possible or even best, after all Telcos had a clear = use-case transatlantic phone calls that they did want to survive as = possible in good quality... But the regulator also argues the same 300ms RTT for remote desktop = applications... any data showing what latency is acceptable for specific = use cases is appreciated. (And I am open for the option that my hunch = that 300ms is too much might be wrong). Regards Sebastian >=20 > Regards, >=20 > David F. >=20 > Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:10:26 +0200 > From: Sebastian Moeller > To: David Lang > Cc: Alexandre Petrescu , Dave Taht via > Starlink > Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dutf-8 >=20 > Hi David, >=20 >=20 > > On 5. Jun 2024, at 16:16, David Lang via Starlink = wrote: > >=20 > > Alexandre Petrescu wrote: > >=20 > >> Le 05/06/2024 =C3=A0 15:40, Gert Doering a =C3=A9crit : > >>> Hi, > >>>=20 > >>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 03:28:45PM +0200, Alexandre Petrescu via = Starlink > >> wrote: > >>>> well, ok. One day the satcom latency will be so low that we will = not have > >>>> enough requirements for its use :-) > >>> Your disbelief in physics keeps amazing me :-) > >>=20 > >> sorry :-) Rather than simply 'satcom' I should have said = satcom-haps-planes-drones. I dont have a name for that. > >=20 > > you would be better off with plans that don't require beating the = speed of light. Yes, quantum entanglement may be a path to beat the = speed of light, but you still need the electronics to handle it, and = have the speed of sound at temperatures and pressures that humans can = live at as a restriction. > >=20 > > by comparison to your 1ms latency goals, extensive AT&T phone = testing decades ago showed that 100ms was the threshold where people = could start to detect a delay. >=20 > Would you have any pointer for that study/those studies? Our local = regulator thinks that 150 ms access network OWD (so 300msRTT) is = acceptable and I am trying to find studies that can shed a light on what = acceptable delay is for different kind of interactive tasks. (Spoiler = alert, I am not convinced that 300ms RTT is a great idea, I forced my = self to remote desktop with artificial 300ms delay and it was not fun, = but not totaly unusable either, but then human can adapt and steer high = inertia vehicles like loaded container ships...) >=20 > Sorry for the tangent... >=20 > Regards > Sebastian >=20 > P.S.: Dave occasionally reminds us how 'slow' in comparison the speed = of sound is ~343 m/second (depending on conditions) or 343/1000 =3D = 0.343 m/millisecond that is even at a distance of 1 meter delay will be = at a 3 ms... and when talking to folks 10m away it is not the delay that = is annoying, but the fact that you have to raise your voice = considerably... >=20 > >=20 > > David Lang_______________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink