From nobody Thu Sep 30 07:30:03 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3863A0CAE; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 07:29:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.847 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 wGf6Zo4FPn4X; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 07:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yb1-xb35.google.com (mail-yb1-xb35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 101063A0C92; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 07:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb35.google.com with SMTP id q81so5422616ybq.5; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 07:29:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=iTgfIr7Bq492QWMBG2IedtgjQv0XB7BuWPoIx7eRU2k=; b=f7J7/HuBqV5ykYBGAFjxuJx4EEA3v5RT08B70yqKhRrKBugio/qF7/Ay6HpqoUFMnN z2b2xEda9MpLBDEy7R5UJE11zlON06HQ+i+oTCKGGogFzpIifJ222+aMFokNIzfo7qmo jyGuXKd5lMdsKHs2r0Dbil4KQygJ/rGwU4gKwUZ34kLkwYapZvY86a8InZMJkUdX3sqv VFEqMfEbaru9lwxMZRMloBqTvfIlFfzNu/2rJXgA4UlaT+R6uy+wayxdXkBGOhlu8JL+ NizT6p8B0nXL4pau/08hqnBgoSMQ9+1czi70CSOJ7QD3Nn8vWseuRpOR0pMAzm+RrJei b2Zg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iTgfIr7Bq492QWMBG2IedtgjQv0XB7BuWPoIx7eRU2k=; b=dRNHWcpcudQriVGC4haLRTXd2BJzRUkNHSh2get3YRmIFxJjPTjV24LUIMXAgqHCsU 8i+slLkM7mno2chcmzc2YuWfATnkIjU0b3NTXRTbfSRCgacTJidy4e5JF0MqcZwcShD/ DX/d1EeIJvRaD4qgA1EWPLi1ZvoRzH962ZUKGW0xdO6ggiMMaUd80eyWoN2q+3L7eAkx tJ7G150swuJl6PaX0WjwV8J8PhZqgXsrrrJEcPWFrNIm1FJDWCeuSKZCQo579shwnQKg 4EO+gJYbPkt6VKeBU1w9Y/LOYFemekpfkH5pylTEYzXsPG4q2plddNLngXbSTXUM4fon eWeQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532BT38O66Is36uSl9qzn0N5szZW34/PMlm1LsIQfZnq+80olQju /Z1wiCeQ9xCrQpiHQCgfhGg2oo2J+ePhjkTYrcM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQFF81opkLKeXnbwo72vKaeW2HmiQnojkOLHIJGYKHv4qWrIrDoNx3CIvue3v/6/uWCS6Go/w1xuQAbnxhgUw= X-Received: by 2002:a25:d258:: with SMTP id j85mr7664324ybg.398.1633012189640; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 07:29:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2572762.KRHqeOQrTU@7b74a564-70da-4baa-82f8-b74434554dd0> In-Reply-To: <2572762.KRHqeOQrTU@7b74a564-70da-4baa-82f8-b74434554dd0> Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org From: Behcet Sarikaya Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 09:29:38 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Interop runner with satellite links To: Sebastian Endres Cc: etosat@ietf.org, QUIC WG , Joerg Deutschmann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007a3cc505cd3747f9" Archived-At: X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:29:56 -0000 --0000000000007a3cc505cd3747f9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Sebastian, On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:58 PM Sebastian Endres wrote: > Dear all, > > for my master's thesis we ran measurements of all publicly available QUIC > implementations over an emulated satellite link. The results are available > online: https://interop.sedrubal.de/ > > A click on the results also shows time-offset plots, but are not available > for every combination. > > In general, the performance of QUIC over high latency (e.g., geostationary > satellites) is rather poor, especially if there is packet loss. > > Would it make sense to add such tests with challenging link > characteristics to the official QUIC interop runner? > > I don't have an answer to this question. My suggestion is to run some tests over LEO satellite links like Starlink. Behcet > Best regards, > > Sebastian > > > --0000000000007a3cc505cd3747f9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Sebastian,



On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:58 PM Sebastian Endres <basti.endres@fau.de> wrote:
Dear all,

for my master's thesis we ran measurements of all publicly available QU= IC implementations over an emulated satellite link. The results are availab= le online: https://interop.sedrubal.de/

A click on the results also shows time-offset plots, but are not available = for every combination.

In general, the performance of QUIC over high latency (e.g., geostationary = satellites) is rather poor, especially if there is packet loss.

Would it make sense to add such tests with challenging link characteristics= to the official QUIC interop runner?



I don't have an ans= wer to this question.=C2=A0
My suggestion is to run some tests ov= er LEO satellite links like Starlink.


Behcet=C2=A0
Best regards,

Sebastian


--0000000000007a3cc505cd3747f9--