> they concluded that PEPs were not being used in the Starlink network
That makes sense, given that they're probably most useful for high-latency networks. But what I find quite surprising is that Starlink does nothing about the 1-2% packet loss, as described in TFA; I'd really have expected them to fix that using an ARQ at a lower layer.
Then again, maybe that's a blessing – indiscriminate ARQs like that would be terrible for time critical things like A/V, which can usually tolerate packet loss much better than ARQ-induced jitter.
Thinking about it, that actually strengthens the case for PEPs: They could improve TCP performance (and maybe things like QUIC?), while leaving non-stream oriented things (like non-QUIC UDP) alone.
Maybe Starlink just expects BBR to eventually become the dominant TCP congestion control algorithm and the problem to solve itself that way?
That makes sense, given that they're probably most useful for high-latency networks. But what I find quite surprising is that Starlink does nothing about the 1-2% packet loss, as described in TFA; I'd really have expected them to fix that using an ARQ at a lower layer.
Then again, maybe that's a blessing – indiscriminate ARQs like that would be terrible for time critical things like A/V, which can usually tolerate packet loss much better than ARQ-induced jitter.
Thinking about it, that actually strengthens the case for PEPs: They could improve TCP performance (and maybe things like QUIC?), while leaving non-stream oriented things (like non-QUIC UDP) alone.
Maybe Starlink just expects BBR to eventually become the dominant TCP congestion control algorithm and the problem to solve itself that way?