From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (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 42D163B2A4 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:10:42 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1717600237; x=1718205037; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=p5M0gZzZBoXlCU28WwC2Q6/5WkRc2f3emeZswyg/fts=; 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=Gu9h04MzYxFVo9yFrLEM86ePIM10X9yZYlO2lldienAdviS/CvRGtSfvOzE/Wo6P M2ruZ8S7UT1d+RlVstQ/RcxGru1FyCbh62B4ygDQOktg7y0Tf+EA1tMIyhT8yLLyi skVsjw0qe1oRbGLKtdmE2sqcZo/AUPOYmVwIgKWH+9+8mXVeaPMpyvgUQO+ZszgHQ 6WtG4Tno1GFpPdLXY5xUF5aasIkS32VY07U1MjqfmvV8Lu8qghJkU2VCdxPgkMlXc YTZI+BJJqeE5tvA4dYUN+hon5FhUrVRTD188EfuCW9GuyCrIv17nZBTv9DP7yRg43 KnhMRIPqXWY1UO7yPA== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Ml6qM-1sif7B1NM4-00fOfS; Wed, 05 Jun 2024 17:10:37 +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: <1r928s39-s5o3-q44n-804n-11ro432210s8@ynat.uz> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:10:26 +0200 Cc: Alexandre Petrescu , Dave Taht via Starlink Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3FF32F52-4A93-496B-85FF-00020FA4A48B@gmx.de> <08F6942E-CC08-4956-B92E-CBEC091D86E4@ieee.org> <2F510BD5-2D7E-4A6A-A3DE-C529D14F6FBC@apple.com> <1078E544-F61B-4289-BCA1-BCDD9FA77481@ieee.org> <97d6e6f0-d153-42fd-b6c1-b64fb429dfca@gmail.com> <4008eb08-871b-4c1b-9cf3-025ba454cbc6@gmail.com> <1f5b183c-5308-430d-8208-d6063c76ab2c@gmail.com> <1r928s39-s5o3-q44n-804n-11ro432210s8@ynat.uz> To: David Lang X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.600.62) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:bSTscbt21ecNhtGyvnUzO3LsbVyrEBDTPNZOicpk5MvpBe5NEa0 keahLaI637x70K0VG8PpBhmtzLmRk8wKcmM+H27YpD10fuN0NsN1gyPrs84sei7lB0zxUMn B0hTIS35DGPxtOWYGOI384W7cwS9LPccyytTA4KGfy9MEFZmCpNvcQrcpEgXUDddgDqG1lw xjfsXHi4hEDtuRAjuy+sQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:iecVJS04ifA=;ujumxN6iKyMcgS9piANq0EtrX7q YtAYJFJyz5zrX6BP/pXu2szW2RJPgJerMYptj1Ug7ZEIW7MysbRvn+/fPws1oeUlCWaN752Lm bvlglE6dU9iIYj4HmSeVBIcGsSEXyVPU76mXbB0AjcSJg6A4nMcv5xwkcuJLImC5fGaDlEV1E ShpIK/2fAPFCewlCF/kFb6sPi8Amm68XKZSFzgmiOEKpjfiF0MXIhRFFjhX/EuHLRn9HbzJ5l bhCZfnF0LgexjfO4VwAzuPwT1ggspzmyGmfxF+f2GP1d4dTUpFUXQEWB4qntaEKLM/7vBmUAu 3wxKc6+LVzLsNMA/Ctsc+rSGqMj/DG4SmKuizqDhzS9RvYXRODUJqCfmXs6XQAjzBQzCDdIM4 ZWeEd2idhaGW8N1z5VbceUq2T1PSwa5BB/dGpenT7GDGLgo9NMMvOZxRMBfdCGX+XSl2ReMQ3 EbGj1TLfnF439LGuCeGP/qZLaR0j8dl1cclZYNYH/9yoaABSHWSVidNXhW8wKE4CX5Vn78F5c AbA9FNLM+l+hm0uMnDAVTAQAqCNvbVc7Gm/b1dSyAddo0OQoDBfRi7uSeraAPK9HOc44oFvTb QsZyRCxvIdoxcTPwvWG+iBfnbQwmWEUJoCTGTX6wY23ELA3EuYIsosBkg+N/RK5i2o21Hu3vF VgkTc8KdzN8MEbR+n1M8rq+cfukB5/nPx+oAwMpyLi38oWifp7VienTIEHXPsXdtRs3BF3RPi gXrf9E5u3Ellj8IWMjCkkEHqrZgGGFGODxSQPL/Y9fnFxY/ULTLoy2uStGq/EM8O2JFNSkzLj lLULOiHzEvRKr/sm1xasZldIyo+dg9y3WOaIyUvN5gp2c= 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 15:10:42 -0000 Hi David, > 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. 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...) Sorry for the tangent... Regards Sebastian 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 > David Lang_______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink