4 ms·

At 0-1%, basically anything. Your wifi and home network probably are closer to 1% than 0%. at 1-10%, you're probably on some kind of shared connection (CMTS o

At 0-1%, basically anything. Your wifi and home network probably are closer to 1% than 0%. at 1-10%, you're probably on some kind of shared connection (CMTS or GPON with TDMA) and your provider has an overloaded network design (and you're at the end of the upgrade/split queue). at anything above 10% you're in the realm of weird broken stuff. Congestion on the internet between major providers is a thing but is far less common than it was a decade ago, it does still happen though. Major providers who have NECMP or NLAG links inside their backbones or between providers where one of the links breaks in a way which doesn't remove it from the ECMP/LAG and suddenly you drop 1/N of the traffic (where N might be 2 == 50% loss). More common was finding LAG/ECMP where 1/N of the links was oversubscribed but the others were fine due to unequal traffic distribution. > noisy RF, industrial Pretty uncommon in my experience as most of these environments are not as cost optimized and know already that they will be in weird RF/electrical environments so they just use wired ethernet (and even shielded cable for really janky situations). While there are strategies to reduce congestion on backbone links, they are not commonly implemented and even less commonly implemented well and sometimes implemented intentionally poorly.

ggm 2y ago
There isn't much point in wierd algo solutions to 1% packetloss, and most people are living under 5% most of the time. I would say on an 80/20 class decision most of us either have layer2 loss in the link to the provider, and then not much loss, or have some corner case of congestion like zoom inter-continentally. Remember, 75% of content now comes from a DC within 1 AS hop of your ISP. For non-western economies reliant on mobile IP, there is a level of loss and congestion being seen in the radio packet layer but that layer is usually dealing with it. Starlink has worked out how to manage it's TCP loss issues despite steering dishy between sats in orbit in a 15 second timeslot model. I'm not trying to dismiss this work: I don't understand the use-case because from my perspective (admittedly in the western economy, but in asia and exposed to the other kind of internet for less developed places) this level of sustained packetloss isn't usual, And when it is, the link layer is usually doing something like FEC to take care of it.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
  I think the use-case for the author is "this is cool" which is the best reason for anything to exist.
- zamalek 2y ago
  Even though 1% loss is relatively common, it is a catastrophic amount of loss, and goes to show the miracle of TCP. 1% loss does not mean 1% less goodput; it means substantially more than 1%. TCP's (and QUIC, and what-have-you) control packets are also subject to that loss, as are individual packet fragments - the probability of retransmissions explodes.

ggm 2y ago

There isn't much point in wierd algo solutions to 1% packetloss, and most people are living under 5% most of the time. I would say on an 80/20 class decision most of us either have layer2 loss in the link to the provider, and then not much loss, or have some corner case of congestion like zoom inter-continentally. Remember, 75% of content now comes from a DC within 1 AS hop of your ISP. For non-western economies reliant on mobile IP, there is a level of loss and congestion being seen in the radio packet layer but that layer is usually dealing with it. Starlink has worked out how to manage it's TCP loss issues despite steering dishy between sats in orbit in a 15 second timeslot model. I'm not trying to dismiss this work: I don't understand the use-case because from my perspective (admittedly in the western economy, but in asia and exposed to the other kind of internet for less developed places) this level of sustained packetloss isn't usual, And when it is, the link layer is usually doing something like FEC to take care of it.

AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
I think the use-case for the author is "this is cool" which is the best reason for anything to exist.
zamalek 2y ago
Even though 1% loss is relatively common, it is a catastrophic amount of loss, and goes to show the miracle of TCP. 1% loss does not mean 1% less goodput; it means substantially more than 1%. TCP's (and QUIC, and what-have-you) control packets are also subject to that loss, as are individual packet fragments - the probability of retransmissions explodes.