IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [EToSat] [QUIC performance and SATCOM]

Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr> Thu, 10 October 2019 10:07 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
X-Original-To: etosat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: etosat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43FA7120047 for <etosat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 03:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lKSrhs7wOy08 for <etosat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 03:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.cnes.fr (mx2.cnes.fr [194.199.174.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C71D120098 for <etosat@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 03:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.67,279,1566864000"; d="scan'208";a="29961006"
X-IPAS-Result: A2GwAADqAZ9d/wEBeAplGgEBAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYF7giBZE3MSKgqVBJATDIVdg0OBZwkBAQEBAQEBAQErCQECAQGEQAKCWSM4EwIMAQEBBAEBAQEBBQIBAQICaYRrQgyGIAEBAQEBAkkfIQIBBQMNCwokMiUCBAESCIMbgncPsFKCJxqEHgEDBIYGgTSBZYY2hgqBEUaCTD6CYQIBAoEmOgqDNIIsBIxziTOXHQeBN26CL4RZhUyBZYZ7dII4inUDixyOLYgikyUjgVgzGieDOAlHEIFvF4QDhGGFP0QwAYEgCI5PAYEiAQE
X-URL-LookUp-ScanningError: 1
From: Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
To: 'Joerg Deutschmann' <joerg.deutschmann@fau.de>, "etosat@ietf.org" <etosat@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [EToSat] [QUIC performance and SATCOM]
Thread-Index: AQHVfrG1iqCoqOpO6kis/m+EUr1ZmqdTpwCg
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:06:47 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:07:47 +0000
Message-ID: <F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1ECB0ACE@TW-MBX-P03.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr>
References: <F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF176933C4@TW-MBX-P02.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr> <2f287d44-4a03-372d-533a-bd15ab82e7f3@fau.de> <504dc62e-16c0-b31f-d5de-ea50d907090d@fau.de>
In-Reply-To: <504dc62e-16c0-b31f-d5de-ea50d907090d@fau.de>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-11.0.0.4255-8.100.1062-24966.006
x-tm-as-result: No--24.806100-0.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/etosat/edgzJJJPxEzSBySI2hEG_M2YaG4>
Subject: Re: [EToSat] [QUIC performance and SATCOM]
X-BeenThere: etosat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The EToSat list is a non-WG mailing list used to discuss performance implications of running encrypted transports such as QUIC over satellite." <etosat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/etosat>, <mailto:etosat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/etosat/>
List-Post: <mailto:etosat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:etosat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/etosat>, <mailto:etosat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:07:54 -0000

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] www.netsys2019.org
> [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://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.04970.pdf
>>
>> This paper has been presented at IETF 103 @MAPRG
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/agenda-103-maprg-0
>> 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)
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email