Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem

[Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4617 bytes --]

Thanks Frank,
So it is not the universal cure. Not surprising.
I don’t see a show-stopper for pushing adoption.

Gene
----------------------------------------------
Eugene Chang
IEEE Life Senior Member
IEEE Communications Society & Signal Processing Society,
    Hawaii Chapter Chair
IEEE Life Member Affinity Group Hawaii Chair
IEEE Entrepreneurship, Mentor
eugene.chang@ieee.org
m 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu)



> On May 7, 2024, at 10:05 AM, Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Here is a current view of it, IIRC:
> 
> https://forum.openwrt.org/t/rfc9330-rfc9331-rfc9332-for-lower-latency/180519/12 <https://forum.openwrt.org/t/rfc9330-rfc9331-rfc9332-for-lower-latency/180519/12>
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Frank
> 
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik <https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> 
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> 
> Skype: casioa5302ca
> 
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com <mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
> 
> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 10:03 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
> I thought I saw a reference to an OpenWRT implementation with L4S. How well does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 7, 2024, at 9:46 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com <mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Pete heist, jon morton, and rod grimes published a TON of research as
>> to where l4s went wrong in these github repos:
>> 
>> https://github.com/heistp <https://github.com/heistp>
>> 
>> The last was: https://github.com/heistp/l4s-tests?tab=readme-ov-file#key-findings <https://github.com/heistp/l4s-tests?tab=readme-ov-file#key-findings>
>> 
>> They were ignored. Me, I had taken one look at it 7+ years ago and
>> said this cannot possibly work with the installed base of wifi
>> properly and since 97E% of all home connections terminate in that it
>> was a dead horse which they kept flogging.
>> 
>> After the L4S RFCs were published they FINALLY took their brands of
>> wishful thinking to actually exploring what happeed on real wifi
>> networks, and... I have no idea where that stands today. Yes a custom
>> wifi7 AP and presumably wifi8 will be able to deal with it, but
>> everything from the backoff mechanisms in the e2e TCP Prague code and
>> the proposed implementations on routers just plain does not work
>> except in a testbed. Fq_codel outperforms it across the board with
>> perhaps, some increased sensivity to RFC3168 seems needed only. L4S
>> (all transports actually) benefits a lot from packet pacing, and...
>> wait for it... fq)
>> 
>> Slow start and convergence issues are problematic also with l4s.
>> 
>> Being backward incompatible with fq_codel's deployed treatment of RFC3168 ECN.
>> is a huge barrier too.
>> 
>> The best use case I can think of for l4s is on a tightly controlled
>> docsis network, pure wires and short RTTs only. The one implementation
>> for 5G I have heard of was laughable in that they were only aiming for
>> 200ms of induced latency on that.
>> 
>> If on the other hand you look at fq (and also how well starlink is
>> performing nowadays) and ccs like bbr, well...
>> 
>> I do honestly think there is room for this sort of signalling
>> somewhere on the internet, and do plan to add what I think will work
>> to cake at some point in the future. I do wish SCE had won, as it was
>> backwards compatible.
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 12:15 PM Jeremy Austin <jeremy@aterlo.com <mailto:jeremy@aterlo.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 11:11 AM Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The RFC is very plausible but the methods break down in multiple ways,
>>>> particularly with wifi.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dave, can you elaborate more on the failures? Are these being researched or addressed in the current trials, in your opinion?
>>> 
>>> Jeremy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVFWSyMp3xg&t=1098s <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVFWSyMp3xg&t=1098s> Waves Podcast
>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 12908 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]