Interop runner with satellite links

Sebastian Endres <> Wed, 29 September 2021 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812553A0AD0; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id piIzz5vuVO5w; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCD1A3A0ABC; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:1025::1e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HKRVn2nzQz1yGQ; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 21:38:09 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fau-2021; t=1632944289; bh=fmr4cqYQDZBTOdYJIQHFTJ+gJXeANJqXBeeX08ygyVI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From:To:CC:Subject; b=sNn6ukXt4jO5PwROchoWb6ij0shewp5TudQex0P7AZdAOU9fhRJmieDOnFlHqgoRE szrtcbc9p7QczCkDaz5paBlG/Ts3JkyI+72+3JXIah7udYqms2giKjmCYJqD1vaCdn 9t5zlnQsAxBdq0RrCqyf/sqH3qB/ysx+H83a85Gm1cB4GZNJ+pM1zzkEvuZvKyIRt/ Xqdn6E+wG7poRghRDHmHwbejNhgntQFbno9VY87Q3rMafuSqDeNufYPvh6R0R1UmWc efJtAybVdohaw/gfn/G8CfSzlHKALP1EjkqtD+aVWuS5tCHJDd7+rgdDjoiATWpb0t Bh/poHjhs15jA==
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at (RRZE)
X-RRZE-Flag: Not-Spam
X-RRZE-Submit-IP: 2001:a62:143b:9201:e6c1:2df5:ecb9:502e
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:a62:143b:9201:e6c1:2df5:ecb9:502e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: U2FsdGVkX1/5DJ61B5WvhL/lIQTuoY7RpMoRoagcTOQ=) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HKRVk4z8vz1y1s; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 21:38:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: Sebastian Endres <>
Subject: Interop runner with satellite links
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 21:38:05 +0200
Message-ID: <2572762.KRHqeOQrTU@7b74a564-70da-4baa-82f8-b74434554dd0>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:57:51 -0700
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: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 19:38:21 -0000

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:

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?

Best regards,