Subject: [aqm] Bufferbloat and the policy debate on packet loss in nanog

From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 15:22:42 -0800

There's nothing new here, but it was a nice rant to get out of my system:

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/128201

Of late, I have been taking a page from Linus Torvalds' playbook, in
realizing that "on the internet, no-one can hear you being subtle",
and BOY, am I done with that.

-- 
Dave Täht
Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again!

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb

---

From: Jim Gettys <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 20:10:52 -0500

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Aaron Wood <[email-masked]> wrote:

> But until the silicon vendors update _their_ forks of OpenWRT,
> commercially available home routers won't have these benefits.  Because the
> home router market is dominated by packaged reference designs from one of a
> very small number of companies that actually make all the chipsets (Dave, I
> know you know this, I'm mostly just choir-preaching myself).
>

​I was talking to one of the major chipset vendors just this last Thursday.​

​
We have to fork-lift upgrade all of these devices, ASAP.

And change how we build/maintain these systems, and do business in embedded
systems.

See my Berkman Center talk here:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/06/gettys​

​We'll be struggling with the policies issues the rest of our lives (which
is why I presented to the Berkman Center).

Also read Dan Geer's policy piece in Lawfare the Lawfare blog.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/04/heartbleed-as-metaphor/

Bruce Schneier's piece in Wired on the IOT is also very good, but aimed at
a mass audience.

I will be publishing and updated version of the talk very soon; the
situation is yet more perilous since June, and my explanations clearer.

Jim

​

> -Aaron
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Dave Taht <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bloat mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
>

---

From: Jonathan Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 03:19:41 +0200

And the reason for that, of course, is that "pile 'em high and sell 'em
cheap" works pretty well in the consumer marketplace - something that Far
Eastern companies have capitalised on a great deal. Amortising a not
inconsiderable R&D cost over the largest possible number of units makes
economic sense.

I think we'd all just rather they sorted out a better design in that
initial R&D phase. That's something that doesn't appeal to the mindsets of
most of those Far Eastern countries very well. Japan is the most likely
exception, but only because they tend to make stuff for themselves first
and others second.

Funny story from the early days of the Raspberry Pi: they were using a
Chinese factory because they needed cheap, and didn't really know how many
would sell - ten thousand was hoped for, as that would break even quite
nicely. But they went to a lot of trouble to be sure of getting something
that actually worked back from them. Engineering samples had come back to
the UK and tested fine, at last, so they gave the green light.

Then the first batch of 2000 Pis arrived, and the Ethernet port didn't work
on a single one of them. The factory had swapped out the RJ45 socket for a
cheaper one after completing the engineering samples, without noticing that
it didn't have the integrated magnetics that the design relied on, and as a
consequence also had a completely incompatible pinout. They quickly learned
their lesson on that point when the batch was sent back for repair, which
entailed hand desoldering and resoldering to swap the socket for the
correct one. That alone probably tripled the factory's costs, even at Asian
labour rates, but it was their own fault. Penny wise...

Of course the Pi sold slightly better than predicted, so they were soon
able to find a factory in Wales that fitted the budget.

- Jonathan Morton

---

From: Aaron Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 16:56:40 -0800

But until the silicon vendors update _their_ forks of OpenWRT, commercially
available home routers won't have these benefits.  Because the home router
market is dominated by packaged reference designs from one of a very small
number of companies that actually make all the chipsets (Dave, I know you
know this, I'm mostly just choir-preaching myself).

-Aaron

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 07:26:08 -0500 (EST)

bravo!

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 6:22pm, "Dave Taht" <[email-masked]> said:

> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>