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

["David Fernández" <davidfdzp@gmail.com>]

Well, as an end-user, I would expect that the communication system is
just properly engineered, not having to check if it is or not properly
built.

Only advanced users would be using monitoring tools to assess the
quality of what they are getting.

It is somehow like pretending people to analyze the tap water at home
to check its quality. Of course, if it is easier, more and more people
will do it, but usually people just get a feeling of how things work,
most of them are not going to measure anything quantitatively, even if
it is super-easy.

Then, there is the so called brand or reputation factor. Getting a
reputation of good service is important not only for Starlink, but the
whole SATCOM sector. SATCOM is considered the last resource,
expensive, lagging and to be used when nothing else is available. If
it succeeds in not getting bankrupt and keeping a good service, as
perceived by users, Starlink could be changing that.

Regards,

David

2023-01-02 20:00 GMT+01:00, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>:
>
>
>> On Jan 2, 2023, at 19:44, Ben Greear via Starlink
>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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.
>
> Also the (maximum) buffer size becomes far less relevant if the buffer is
> properly managed...
>
> Over-sized and under-managed, that is the problematic combination.
>
> That said, part of the challenge is that throughput is easy to measure and
> is actively marketed and consumers have learned to look for these numbers.
> So manufacturers increasing throughput by enlarging buffers is at least
> understandable in our market economy.
> This is why it is important to educate end-users and supply easy tools to
> allow them to effortlessly measure the effect of over-buffering on
> interactivity.
>
> Regards
> 	Sebastian
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
>> Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>