Re: [gaia] Heterogeneity in network capacity: growing?

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Mon, 29 February 2016 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1BC1B3537 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:26:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=ham
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 n7it4FjscSNr for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:26:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out5.uio.no (mail-out5.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::17]) (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 E66EA1A1ABC for <gaia@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:26:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx4.uio.no ([129.240.10.45]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1aaQeG-0006gG-Sb; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:26:16 +0100
Received: from 3.134.189.109.customer.cdi.no ([109.189.134.3] helo=[192.168.0.107]) by mail-mx4.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1aaQeG-0005kn-DX; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:26:16 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <F1EC90A5-46B0-4E88-9ECD-205A70A85DD5@aalto.fi>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:26:15 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <91D39E62-3B55-4C5C-82B0-67459551CA19@ifi.uio.no>
References: <32116_1456700693_56D37D15_32116_453_1_CF23F499-41D1-4DA6-A306-8924DC4F4DB4@ifi.uio.no> <41954A84-EFF0-4107-9859-E60AAC65285C@aalto.fi> <56F64461-28A0-4E5E-9923-D177B663EFB7@ifi.uio.no> <F1EC90A5-46B0-4E88-9ECD-205A70A85DD5@aalto.fi>
To: Manner Jukka <jukka.manner@aalto.fi>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 5 msgs/h 3 sum rcpts/h 9 sum msgs/h 5 total rcpts 38801 max rcpts/h 54 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 8B944A83F53EC9627D3B5A0FF35E38B8CFB42631
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 109.189.134.3 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 3 total 414 max/h 14 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/vEB27Lfy7t0G4TbPhuvTaf3wMyg>
Cc: "gaia@irtf.org" <gaia@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [gaia] Heterogeneity in network capacity: growing?
X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <gaia.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gaia/>
List-Post: <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:26:21 -0000

> On 29. feb. 2016, at 10.11, Manner Jukka <jukka.manner@aalto.fi> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I don’t have a published analysis to cite, have done similar comparisons many times in various presentations. I could run that distribution from the Netradar database for 2014 and 2015, just need to give me the X buckets where to allocate the samples. 

NetRadar data would definitely be nice as a data point!  About buckets, not sure I get it: I mean e.g. a CDF of bandwidth values that were seen overall in 2014 and 2015; that would show if there is a shift not only towards higher bandwidths but if the diversity als increases, I guess.

If you need to have buckets to query, I guess it can be any reasonable low / high bandwidth values… the question is, do the low bandwidths disappear as quickly as the higher ones pop up?


> Market analysis is a bit trickier, since measurements need to be mapped to a region somehow. IP address is one option if it can be trusted enough.

*I* don’t actually care about markets much. I just wonder what range of bandwidths network protocols need to be able to operate over… is it always the same range or is the range growing (as I suspect)?

Cheers,
Michael