From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (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 0F2133B2A4 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:17:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2e78fe9fc2bso109211fa.3 for ; Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:17:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1717600640; x=1718205440; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=GEXL0It+rloE6kwvN3AZCAG1tlwtRF8pkq2n1M2g8p4=; b=ERRyLCl8vP4PHQkaP3vXGp0md6rqGFDY4/xwKWRMQBoDCGASxIk/k8P3JIZibBXyyw h898TvbHAhDr+1BOCDDJTCS+CYTvgL4/HIUU5Av/sHl9uq2k7GplIxBhJ2s5a9D7WNak h7h8EeVcNtZDFYmHfpQb89OtL6oQB61K9oOBxctvabdA86jB4Zob3jL409h0AzCrdzac 3l1uoFegIf8GBzOwfB57ZdqaHNfwd7SL00rIh0QpEdVTWiyyf2mFrqh0PrNL5p7cQo3+ EusJqc/WDQdi4C3g5RqCIsKPqhZ2nnUvuslu7pjAk/CySEwrumat9oKh8+5fBkcpwEAP ygsw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1717600640; x=1718205440; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=GEXL0It+rloE6kwvN3AZCAG1tlwtRF8pkq2n1M2g8p4=; b=Borj0bWhJ46O7RF0Ik5YtwOMNkRW9G7hTonI25cz5GoPFEuBD34dKZJsufIEaWMkKp LRS3NTG/eQiBB2jOAJTGsb4BHIZrd0HTnRwMOPDG2fDHeASh/RPHNGrYHYDTOLTHlooG LNmoz21DuenTQRKPQb5ZmNc9slokwAxRszWZdbHOpC/WTuWc8JCyJBCSDBVroSRfHcRX OIEybvfqsmohcyeU8/9KeWrEO681wF87wFxLLkqYm/MU8fz3/oFNBm5LN/H9qbeMFA+i 81REzrOmpM+9ViQ+JyXgsRiReMSj7fP9CnvVxx+B9Cj+EF3+4f9jj4uQqY5i22/UQFF7 r1DQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxIOlLIy+DikOE8ZT4ByNJGs2+ZuFgQolwEmL/q5FmPdwjlcySo +XGB29WpSIottaj6mmyS5SOYDhHDfqVRYdo1WXYkMz8PCIUGrrYfT56xcEtwIoTHg3mDV2URl9c 1Hh1KmOL2N1ROhrckKKvgu2fdNw1gn86HDZ2zYA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEF/AzWhqcSiNiPFzKNxFwDc78KQYCZLVo7LQdh5MbBSrYXcIGwovnQQpquUV/HIU3pyX+WNEKdSAkuuzlnKlk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:19aa:b0:2e9:870c:de1d with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2eac7a6c78bmr20330271fa.39.1717600640140; Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:17:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: =?UTF-8?Q?David_Fern=C3=A1ndez?= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:16:44 +0200 Message-ID: To: starlink Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000058eab061a261034" 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 15:17:22 -0000 --000000000000058eab061a261034 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Sebastian, " 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. Regards, David F. 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 < starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 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... > > David Lang_______________________________________________ --000000000000058eab061a261034 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Sebastian,

" Our local=20 regulator thinks that 150 ms access network OWD (so 300msRTT) is=20 acceptable"

Your local regulator is following= ITU-T advice in Recommendation G.114, where it is said that up to 150 ms o= ne-way delay is acceptable for telephony.

Regards,=

David F.

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:10:26 +0200
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: David Lang <david= @lang.hm>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, Dave Taht via
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't = a problem
Message-ID: <C1BCE67C-E4D3-4626-B9FB-1AD35C8D93CD@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0charset=3Dutf-8

Hi David,


> On 5. Jun 2024, at 16:16, David Lang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbl= oat.net> 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 v= ia Starlink
>> wrote:
>>>> well, ok.=C2=A0 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 :-)=C2=A0 Rather than simply 'satcom' I should have = said satcom-haps-planes-drones.=C2=A0 I dont have a name for that.
>
> you would be better off with plans that don't require beating the= =20 speed of light. Yes, quantum entanglement may be a path to beat the=20 speed of light, but you still need the electronics to handle it, and=20 have the speed of sound at temperatures and pressures that humans can=20 live at as a restriction.
>
> by comparison to your 1ms latency goals, extensive AT&T phone=20 testing decades ago showed that 100ms was the threshold where people=20 could start to detect a delay.

Would you have any pointer for that study/those studies? Our local=20 regulator thinks that 150 ms access network OWD (so 300msRTT) is=20 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=20 alert, I am not convinced that 300ms RTT is a great idea, I forced my=20 self to remote desktop with artificial 300ms delay and it was not fun,=20 but not totaly unusable either, but then human can adapt and steer high=20 inertia vehicles like loaded container ships...)

Sorry for the tangent...

Regards
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Sebastian

P.S.: Dave occasionally reminds us how 'slow' in comparison the spe= ed of sound is ~343 m/second (depending on conditions) or 343/1000 =3D 0.343=20 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=20 annoying, but the fact that you have to raise your voice considerably...
>
> David Lang_______________________________________________
--000000000000058eab061a261034--