Re: [Starlink] insanely great waveform result for starlink

[Ulrich Speidel <u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3984 bytes --]

 From Auckland, New Zealand, using a roaming subscription, it puts me in 
touch with a server 2000 km away. OK then:


IP address: nix six.

My thoughts shall follow later.

On 13/01/2023 5:26 pm, Jonathan Bennett via Starlink wrote:
> Just ran a Waveform test, and ping times are still terrible 
> while maxing out download speeds. Upload saturation doesn't seem to 
> affect latency, though. Also interesting, it's giving me a valid ipv6 
> block again.
>
> image.png
> image.png
> Jonathan Bennett
> Hackaday.com
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:08 PM Dave Taht via Starlink 
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>     has anyone been testing theirs this week?
>
>     ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>     From: Luis A. Cornejo <luis.a.cornejo@gmail.com>
>     Date: Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 7:30 PM
>     Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] the grinch meets
>     cloudflare'schristmas present
>     To: MORTON JR., AL <acmorton@att.com>
>     Cc: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, Jay Moran <jay@tp.org>, Cake List
>     <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, Rpm
>     <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
>     dickroy@alum.mit.edu <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, libreqos
>     <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>
>
>     Well Reddit has many posts talking about noticeable performance
>     increases for Starlink. Here is a primetime run:
>
>     waveform:
>     https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=333f97c7-7cbd-406c-8d9a-9f850cb5de7d
>     <https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=333f97c7-7cbd-406c-8d9a-9f850cb5de7d>
>
>     cloudflare attached
>
>
>
>     On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 11:43 AM MORTON JR., AL <acmorton@att.com>
>     wrote:
>     >
>     > Dave and Luis,
>     >
>     > Do you know if any of these tools are using ~random payloads, to
>     defeat compression?
>     >
>     > UDPST has a CLI option:
>     > (m)    -X           Randomize datagram payload (else zeroes)
>     >
>     > When I used this option testing shipboard satellite access,
>     download was about 115kbps.
>     >
>     > Al
>     >
>     > > -----Original Message-----
>     > > From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>     > > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 11:12 AM
>     > > To: Luis A. Cornejo <luis.a.cornejo@gmail.com>
>     > > Cc: Jay Moran <jay@tp.org>; Cake List
>     <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; IETF IPPM
>     > > WG <ippm@ietf.org>; MORTON JR., AL <acmorton@att.com>; Rpm
>     > > <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>; bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>;
>     > > dickroy@alum.mit.edu; libreqos <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>     > > Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] the grinch meets
>     > > cloudflare'schristmas present
>     > >
>     > > Either starlink has vastly improved, or the test is way off in
>     this case.
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>     https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
>     <https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz>
>     Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>     _______________________________________________
>     Starlink mailing list
>     Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>     https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>     <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
-- 
****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel

School of Computer Science

Room 303S.594 (City Campus)

The University of Auckland
u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz  
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
****************************************************************



[-- Attachment #2.1: Type: text/html, Size: 10059 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.2: sPzzvwIXE4go16tN.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 109764 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.3: OMUOBp06rXY0I8Ws.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 92859 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.4: image.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 235280 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.5: image.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 298232 bytes --]