Re: [EToSat] [QUIC performance and SATCOM]

[Joerg Deutschmann <[e-mail]>]

Dear Emmanuel,

thank you. I've been aware of OpenSAND for some time, but did not try it yet. The paper certainly is interesting.

When using NetEm, our results were worse than using real links or dummynet. The reason may be that we do not have specific NetEm/tbf settings for satellite links. If anybody has, please tell me. With dummynet the results matched the measurements from real satellite links quite well.

Despite the benefits of OpenSAND, I'm afraid that a lot of developers will stick to the emulation tools they are used to. Therefore, I think it would also be interesting to see how satellite links perform with the ns-3 QUIC benchmarking framework [1].

[1] https://github.com/marten-seemann/quic-network-simulator

Best regards,
Joerg




On 10.10.19 13:52, Emmanuel Lochin wrote:
> Dear Joerg, Tom,
> 
> If you attempt to mimic a satellite link with Netem or Dummynet, you 
> might be interested in having a better emulation system such as OpenSAND 
> : http://opensand.org/
> If you need to be convinced by the capabilities of OpenSAND, check this 
> paper : "Making Trustable Satellite Experiments: an Application to a 
> VoIP Scenario" available here : http://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/21907/
> 
> EL
> 
> Le 10/10/2019 à 12:45, Tom Jones a écrit :
>> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 04:55:58PM +0200, Joerg Deutschmann wrote:
>>> 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 
>>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks for sharing these results.
>>
>> Could you expand, maybe off list, the problems you had with netem and
>> Linux?
>>
>> We have network emulation testbeds here using both dummynet on FreeBSD
>> and netem on Linux and with some work we managed to get similar network
>> charactaristics out of both. I do wonder if we might have missed 
>> something
>> that you have seen though.
>>
>>
>>> 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-00
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/etosat
>>
>