Re: [EToSat] [QUIC performance and SATCOM]

     The results we are in the process of writing up right now also focus on packet loss impact on bulk throughput.  I have asked for a slot at MAPRG to present the results but we intend to publish an I-D before then...

John

-----Original Message-----
From: EToSat <etosat-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Kuhn Nicolas
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 6:07 AM
To: 'Joerg Deutschmann' <joerg.deutschmann@fau.de>; etosat@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EToSat] [QUIC performance and SATCOM]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Joerg, 

Thank you for sharing these results with us. 
This seems to confirm that we have an issue when QUIC is confronted to a long RTT and loss-link. 
We will try to come up with "similar" experiments for the next IETF.

Kind regards,

Nicolas

-----Message d'origine-----
De : EToSat <etosat-bounces@ietf.org> De la part de Joerg Deutschmann Envoyé : mercredi 9 octobre 2019 16:56 À : etosat@ietf.org Objet : Re: [EToSat] [QUIC performance and SATCOM]

Dear all,

we continued our QUIC over satellite performance measurements with different operators and QUIC implementations. Unfortunately, these are still only black-box tests. The results were presented at the 25th KaConf. The related paper [1] also gives an introduction to QUIC, therefore you probably want to skip to section 4 and 5.

[1] www7content.cs.fau.de/~deutschmann/KaConf2019/KaConf2019_QUICoverSatellite_paper.pdf

Best regards,
Joerg

On 15.02.19 16:48, Joerg Deutschmann wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> thanks for the link to this interesting paper. We did some related 
> work, which you might be interested in. It will be presented at the 
> NetSys
> 2019 conference [1]. A version is available at [2].
> 
> While your "QUIC and SATCOM" paper provides more details regarding
> HTTP/2 vs. QUIC, we took a broader view. We measured page load times 
> over HTTP(S)/1.1 and HTTP/2, with and without VPNs. Additionally we 
> set up two Quic servers (Chromium QUIC and quic-go). All tests were 
> run with three different satellite internet providers, showing quite 
> some differences...
> 
> Best regards,
> Joerg
> 
> [1] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.netsys2019.org__;!0rLxnc5oh4s!k
> AlU66iaWLJ6FEuJ0maSW_ZWJKLtUszz3bVm1hE3alEoGN5_V5RS6sNlMCe6cXvXkw$
> [2] www7content.cs.fau.de/~deutschmann/NetSys2019_preprint.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 09.11.18 04:35, Kuhn Nicolas wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We have recently posted on ArXiv an article on QUIC and its 
>> performance over a GEO SATCOM link.
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.04970.pdf__;!0
>> rLxnc5oh4s!kAlU66iaWLJ6FEuJ0maSW_ZWJKLtUszz3bVm1hE3alEoGN5_V5RS6sNlMC
>> cNccHCHw$
>>
>> This paper has been presented at IETF 103 @MAPRG 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/
>> materials/agenda-103-maprg-0__;!0rLxnc5oh4s!kAlU66iaWLJ6FEuJ0maSW_ZWJ
>> KLtUszz3bVm1hE3alEoGN5_V5RS6sNlMCfUIN9rXA$
>> 0
>>
>> The code used to run these experiments is available, so do not 
>> hesitate to contact us if you want to reproduce our experiments.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Ludovic Thomas (ISAE-SUPAERO), Emmanuel Dubois (CNES), Nicolas Kuhn 
>> (CNES), Emmanuel Lochin (ISAE-SUPAERO)
>>
> 

_______________________________________________
EToSat mailing list
EToSat@ietf.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/etosat__;!0rLxnc5oh4s!kAlU66iaWLJ6FEuJ0maSW_ZWJKLtUszz3bVm1hE3alEoGN5_V5RS6sNlMCcnWN2jnA$ 