text: 243,22,1409404108776390658,70445227,Ike Kunze,"Our new paper on four spin-bit cousins that focus on loss detection is out and will be presented at ANRW '21 (co-located with IETF 111 @inretafo/@ietf). Check out the paper (<LINK>) and try our experiments yourself (<LINK>). [1/6] <LINK> In a Mininet testbed, we study the loss detection capabilities of the L-, Q-, R- and T-Bits, which are currently proposed in the @ietf IPPM WG and, similar to the spin-bit, shape measurable signals onto a (transport) connection. (<LINK>) [2/6] Overall, all approaches provide reasonable loss estimates close to the ground truth when subject to random loss. However, longer algorithmic intervals of Q, R, T cause fluctuations, while the L follows the ground truth with a slight delay. [3/6] <LINK> These intervals of Q, R, T also impact their accuracy in times of bursty loss as whole phases might be wiped out. The L-Bit is quite robust to this as it reports the loss detected by the sender-side loss detection on a packet-by-packet level. [4/6] <LINK> The previous results base on long-running experiments with roughly 1 Mio sent packets each. When looking at shorter connections, it can be seen that the approaches require certain amounts of sent data to produce readings. Results only stabilize for higher flow volumes. [5/6] <LINK> From a pure measurement accuracy perspective, the L-Bit and combinations of Q&L / Q&R, look the most promising. However, the approaches allow for different path segmentation granularities. While this might impact real deployments, it is not the focus of our paper. [6/6] <LINK>",http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.13710,"Network operators utilize traffic monitoring to locate and fix faults or performance bottlenecks. This often relies on intrinsic protocol semantics, e.g., sequence numbers, that many protocols share implicitly through their packet headers. The arrival of (almost) fully encrypted transport protocols, such as QUIC, significantly complicates this monitoring as header data is no longer visible to passive observers. Recognizing this challenge, QUIC offers explicit measurement semantics by exposing the spin bit to measure a flow's RTT. Ongoing efforts in the IETF IPPM working group argue to expose further information and enable the passive quantification of packet loss. This work implements and evaluates four currently proposed measurement techniques (L-, Q-, R-, and T-bit). We find that all techniques generally provide accurate loss estimations, but that longer algorithmic intervals for Q and R, yet foremost for T, complicate detecting very small loss rates or loss on short connections. Deployment combinations of Q & R as well as Q & L, thus, have the best potential for accurately grasping the loss in networks. ","L, Q, R, and T -- Which Spin Bit Cousin Is Here to Stay?",6,"[""Our new paper on four spin-bit cousins that focus on loss detection is out and will be presented at ANRW '21 (co-located with IETF 111 @inretafo/@ietf). Check out the paper (<LINK>) and try our experiments yourself (<LINK>). [1/6] <LINK>"", 'In a Mininet testbed, we study the loss detection capabilities of the L-, Q-, R- and T-Bits, which are currently proposed in the @ietf IPPM WG and, similar to the spin-bit, shape measurable signals onto a (transport) connection. (https://t.co/JwTHhKtQJI) [2/6]', 'Overall, all approaches provide reasonable loss estimates close to the ground truth when subject to random loss. However, longer algorithmic intervals of Q, R, T cause fluctuations, while the L follows the ground truth with a slight delay. [3/6] https://t.co/zRwGZ92y53', 'These intervals of Q, R, T also impact their accuracy in times of bursty loss as whole phases might be wiped out. The L-Bit is quite robust to this as it reports the loss detected by the sender-side loss detection on a packet-by-packet level.  [4/6] https://t.co/rXhqfVTAhQ', 'The previous results base on long-running experiments with roughly 1 Mio sent packets each. When looking at shorter connections, it can be seen that the approaches require certain amounts of sent data to produce readings. Results only stabilize for higher flow volumes. [5/6] https://t.co/o58R9CHXJn', 'From a pure measurement accuracy perspective, the L-Bit and combinations of Q&amp;L / Q&amp;R, look the most promising. However, the approaches allow for different path segmentation granularities. While this might impact real deployments, it is not the focus of our paper. [6/6] https://t.co/qSzAi4OIPO']",21,06,1551