Hacker News Reader

Comment by lxgr | Hacker News Reader

TIL that that's what they're called. Thank you!

Do you know if they became obsolete due to modern TCP stacks handling LFNs better or for some other reason?

I could imagine them being quite useful for high-loss, high-latency paths (i.e. in addition to LFNs in conjunction with poorly tuned TCP implementation), but most wireless protocols I know (802.11, GPRS and beyond etc.) just implement an ARQ process that masks the loss at the packet or lower layer.

So maybe between that and LFN-aware TCPs, there wasn't much left for them to improve to justify the additional complexity?

View on HN

It's been a long time since I've paid attention to that world, but AFAIK, PEPs are still used and essential equipment for internet-style communication (i.e. TCP over IP) via GEO satellites.

It looks like in this 2022 blog post evaluating latency and throughput over Starlink, they concluded that PEPs were not being used in the Starlink network (and probably unnecessary) due to the lower latency characteristics from use of LEO satellites. They also mention that PEPs are (still) commonly employed by GEO-satcom based operators.

https://blog.apnic.net/2022/11/28/fact-checking-starlinks-pe...

> 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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com