From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1585E3B2A4 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2eaa794eb9fso57872861fa.2 for ; Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:33:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1717601610; x=1718206410; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=R7+zMfL4XMqGIJXlpVjDhVvfP00J96aplGZB8/o0JI0=; b=TCCXnFB7pmqF4kYhByEgZxMecoJBSEYR3mt/Pb4YElf3ZjlewisLwoFe3yca9gtmER xXK4vJcxc+B74wXGGOtB+KZZ19d2cPrQN45twFTeAXJkuaLAo2cj6H5OcvXKH1tnsNAi 8e3qHu5EEIkRxOTJM/gu+DLoa98/C/NxkLasmbk/Nxc12jjtp25h4reCc4rKgkx0W2t4 zSQgZ+qCOJVWH2p/WbC5d5WaSlgdGC2FUt/cx3lBV3fynKItNeslAQj//iS1NruSWBfM eTv6DQhpMsApbuqA6/WN4opnC9b+5UypogS5oUQnXZ9vLA7TcaIhqVWeMR1gPv50x4Ue 2I/A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1717601610; x=1718206410; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=R7+zMfL4XMqGIJXlpVjDhVvfP00J96aplGZB8/o0JI0=; b=EK0MEERoybKr7lByIJUDjOQTZkPFzbMfMEM9eD4GakIFsfV1gZKQcGBoLa82iN/A/b BnYByC+N28Qw0pTz9bFlNM1rtqV+f1+yWLCya5n4Xnz1jCAWQLkgzBARGzbmNW0Grcso YYmFTnwRvmT/TZfA+/XqDnJ3Zg+9Q1lDhPog58jpQKR/X0JnlpvwfFK22Rrx5yH64Xv4 7fRLaTFZLWEiu4RF0X4/SEEXkRB8P2owgy7apapptvCK17KmQ6ZgSFJRNFTJdYr+LpmW OrdFSWcQiLbKIQpBJ7hJeeCGzO9zTPkmxIzqumWvXQ18EIreQyV4U/JBUalEEgzu3Kuh cqOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwPL6g+5L5ipeq/Q5YnO+7ePrkJrLuv9sP8wm3Ct3H/2dZpu6Zo JiZeAUl7zlb4Q3uYJZbmNkl/B8B+FJ042MbnEAMdFagyzBCBV9JRKlAbcs1IPJG7LnqZo0YI1Qo n0UZdR5IAGFHHMMbE/y2A7snr+uOnsb4BF3mk/w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHqHtH7DpTgN1z9pCSUnklyAV6eSp7opB7+PEvoOFoVXkkB/ucgWDJ27ioDpNHB4wsZnG4trq6Lw1mnGHYxSCo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:211f:b0:2d4:3e82:117e with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2eac7a52b0fmr20523441fa.32.1717601610265; Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:33:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <467ccff0-5586-4b9f-b656-e1aa3d1865b4@kit.edu> In-Reply-To: <467ccff0-5586-4b9f-b656-e1aa3d1865b4@kit.edu> From: =?UTF-8?Q?David_Fern=C3=A1ndez?= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:32:54 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Bless, Roland (TM)" Cc: starlink Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d87d6d061a2649b9" 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 15:33:32 -0000 --000000000000d87d6d061a2649b9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Roland, You remember well. That's right. In video is called glass-to-glass latency and it can be measured with this, for example: https://hamtv.com/latencytest.html Regards, David F. On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 17:21, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote: > Hi, > > On 05.06.24 at 17:16 David Fern=C3=A1ndez via Starlink wrote: > > " Our local regulator thinks that 150 ms access network OWD (so > > 300msRTT) is acceptable" > > > > 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. > > That is actually mouth-to-ear delay IIRC, so network delay is only a > part of it. One has to consider play-buffering delay and codec delay > as well. Interactive gaming usually requires smaller delays for a good > QoE. > > Regards, > Roland > > > 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 > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > > On 5. Jun 2024, at 16:16, David Lang via Starlink > > = > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Alexandre Petrescu wrote: > > > > > >> Le 05/06/2024 =C3=A0 15:40, Gert Doering a =C3=A9crit : > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> 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 :-) > > >> > > >> sorry :-) Rather than simply 'satcom' I should have said > > satcom-haps-planes-drones. I dont have a name for that. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > by comparison to your 1ms latency goals, extensive AT&T phone testin= g > > decades ago showed that 100ms was the threshold where people could star= t > > 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 wha= t > > 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 o= f > > 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..= . > > > > > > > > David Lang_______________________________________________ > > --000000000000d87d6d061a2649b9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Roland,

You remember well= . That's right. In video is called glass-to-glass latency and it can be= measured with this, for example:

=
Regards,

David F.

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024= at 17:21, Bless, Roland (TM) <r= oland.bless@kit.edu> wrote:
Hi,

On 05.06.24 at 17:16 David Fern=C3=A1ndez via Starlink wrote:
> " Our local regulator thinks that 150 ms access network OWD (so <= br> > 300msRTT) is acceptable"
>
> 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.

That is actually mouth-to-ear delay IIRC, so network delay is only a
part of it. One has to consider play-buffering delay and codec delay
as well. Interactive gaming usually requires smaller delays for a good
QoE.

Regards,
=C2=A0 Roland

> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:10:26 +0200
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de <mailto:moeller0@gmx.de>>
> To: David Lang <= david@lang.hm <mailto:david@lang.hm>>
> Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>, Dave Taht via
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net=
> <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn&#= 39;t a problem
> Message-ID: <C1BCE67C-E4D3-4626-B9FB-1AD35C8D93CD@gmx.de =
> <mailto:C1BCE67C-E4D3-4626-B9FB-1AD35C8D93CD@gmx.de>&g= t;
> Content-Type: text/plain;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0charset=3Dutf-8 >
> Hi David,
>
>
>=C2=A0 > On 5. Jun 2024, at 16:16, David Lang via Starlink
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net= >>
> wrote:
>=C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 > Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>=C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 >> Le 05/06/2024 =C3=A0 15:40, Gert Doering a =C3=A9crit :=
>=C2=A0 >>> Hi,
>=C2=A0 >>>
>=C2=A0 >>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 03:28:45PM +0200, Alexandre= Petrescu via
> Starlink
>=C2=A0 >> wrote:
>=C2=A0 >>>> well, ok.=C2=A0 One day the satcom latency will= be so low that we will
> not have
>=C2=A0 >>>> enough requirements for its use :-)
>=C2=A0 >>> Your disbelief in physics keeps amazing me :-)
>=C2=A0 >>
>=C2=A0 >> sorry :-)=C2=A0 Rather than simply 'satcom' I s= hould have said
> satcom-haps-planes-drones.=C2=A0 I dont have a name for that.
>=C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 > you would be better off with plans that don't require b= eating 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 <= br> > have the speed of sound at temperatures and pressures that humans can =
> live at as a restriction.
>=C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 > by comparison to your 1ms latency goals, extensive AT&T= phone testing
> decades ago showed that 100ms was the threshold where people could sta= rt
> 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 wh= at
> 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 hig= h
> inertia vehicles like loaded container ships...)
>
> Sorry for the tangent...
>
> Regards
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Sebastian
>
> P.S.: Dave occasionally reminds us how 'slow' in comparison th= e 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 <= br> > annoying, but the fact that you have to raise your voice considerably.= ..
>
>=C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 > David Lang_______________________________________________
--000000000000d87d6d061a2649b9--