Thanks David,
> On Apr 30, 2024, at 6:12 PM, David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Eugene Y Chang wrote: > >> I’m not completely up to speed on the gory details. Please humor me. I am >> pretty good on the technical marketing magic. >> >> What is the minimum configuration of an ISP infrastructure where we can show >> an A/B (before and after) test? >> It can be a simplified scenario. The simpler, the better. We can talk >> through the issues of how minimal is adequate. Of course and ISP engineer >> will argue against simplicity. > > I did not see a very big improvement on a 4/.5 dsl link, but there was > improvement. Would a user feel the improvement with a 10 minute session: shopping on Amazon? using Salesforce? working with a shared Google doc? > > if you put openwrt on the customer router and configure cake with the > targeted bandwith at ~80% of line speed, you will usually see a drastic > improvement for just about any connection. Are you saying some of the benefits can be realized with just upgrading the subscriber’s router? This makes adoption harder because the subscriber will lose the ISP’s support for any connectivity issues. If a demo impresses the subscribers, the ISP still needs to embrace this change; otherwise the ISP will wash their hands of any subscriber problems. > > If you can put fq_codel on both ends of the link, you can usually skip > capping the bandwidth. This is good if this means the benefits can be achieved with just the CPE. This also limits the changes to subscribers that care. > > unfortunantly, it's not possible to just add this to the ISPs existing > hardware without having the source for the firmware there (and if they have > their queues in ASICs it's impossible to change them. Is this just an alternative to having the change at the CPE? Yes this is harder for routers in the network. > > If you can point at the dramatic decrease in latency, with no bandwidth > losses, that Starlink has achieved on existing hardware, that may help. This is good to know for the engineers. This adds confusion with the subscribers. > > There are a number of ISPs around the world that have implemented active > queue management and report very good results from doing so. Can we get these ISPs to publically report how they have achieved great latency reduction? We can help them get credit for caring about their subscribers. It would/could be a (short term) competitive advantage. Of course their competitors will (might) adopt these changes and eliminate the advantage, BUT the subscribers will retain glow of the initial marketing for a much longer time. > > But showing that their existing hardware can do it when their upstream vendor > doesn't support it is going to be hard. Is the upstream vendor a network provider or a computing center? Getting good latency from the subscriber, through the access network to the edge computing center and CDNs would be great. The CDNs would harvest the benefits. The other computing configurations would have make the change to be competitive. We wouild have done our part at pushing the next round of adoption. Gene > > David Lang > >> >> We will want to show the human visible impact and not debate good or not so >> good measurements. If we get the business and community subscribers on our >> side, we win. >> >> Note: >> Stage 1 is to show we have a pure software fix (that can work on their >> hardware). The fix is “so dramatic” that subscribers can experience it >> without debating measurements. >> Stage 2 discusses why the ISP should demand that their equipment vendors add >> this software. (The software could already be available, but the ISP doesn’t >> think it is worth the trouble to enable it.) Nothing will happen unless we >> stay engaged. We need to keep the subscribers engaged, too. >> >> Should we have a conference call to discuss this? >> >> >> Gene >> ---------------------------------------------- >> Eugene Chang >> IEEE Life Senior Member >> >> >> >>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 3:52 PM, Jim Forster <j...@connectivitycap.com> wrote: >>> >>> Gene, David, >>> ‘m >>> Agreed that the technical problem is largely solved with cake & codel. >>> >>> Also that demos are good. How to do one for this problem> >>> >>> — Jim >>> >>>> The bandwidth mantra has been used for so long that a technical discussion >>>> cannot unseat the mantra. >>>> Some technical parties use the mantra to sell more, faster, ineffective >>>> service. Gullible customers accept that they would be happy if they could >>>> afford even more speed. >>>> >>>> Shouldn’t we create a demo to show the solution? >>>> To show is more effective than to debate. It is impossible to explain to >>>> some people. >>>> Has anyone tried to create a demo (to unseat the bandwidth mantra)? >>>> Is an effective demo too complicated to create? >>>> I’d be glad to participate in defining a demo and publicity campaign. >>>> >>>> Gene >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 2:36 PM, David Lang <da...@lang.hm >>>>> <mailto:da...@lang.hm> <mailto:da...@lang.hm <mailto:da...@lang.hm>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Eugene Y Chang via Starlink wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. >>>>>> (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community >>>>>> care about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following >>>>>> scenarios. >>>>>> >>>>>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch >>>>>> content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer >>>>>> bloat and high latency. >>>>>> >>>>>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user >>>>>> could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive >>>>>> response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing >>>>>> email and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies >>>>>> to more people.) >>>>>> >>>>>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household? >>>>>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve? >>>>>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.) >>>>> >>>>> it's largely a solved problem from a technical point of view. fq_codel >>>>> and cake solve this. >>>>> >>>>> The solution is just not deployed widely, instead people argue that more >>>>> bandwidth is needed instead.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
