From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
To: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] Skype
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:25:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1AF294D3-4279-4707-B699-EE4C512264B0@ifi.uio.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <81564C0D7D4D2A4B9A86C8C7404A13DA04B32E@ESESSMB205.ericsson.se>
Ohh... rats, I didn't check that. Quite possible.
Cheers,
Michael
On Nov 19, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Ingemar Johansson S wrote:
> Hi
>
> Been a year or so since I read about the inner secrets of Skype so
> this may be old..
> I would suspect that your Skype session runs over TCP (via a Relay).
> This may happen e.g when a firewall blocks UDP.
> TCP (possibly in combination with a lossy WiFi connection) is what
> creates the high latencies.
>
> /Ingemar
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:57:53 +0100
> From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
> To: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.NET>
> Subject: [Bloat] Skype
> Message-ID: <647D57F5-24CE-4006-AD2A-74141C84C3CB@ifi.uio.no>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Hi,
>
> I have repeatedly noticed that Skype sometimes, in a long
> conversation involving video, can create massive audio delays (in
> the order of multiple seconds). This has happened to me in a
> conversation from a hotel room in the US to my home in Oslo (where,
> apologies, I haven't yet looked into de-bloating my modem and access
> point), and from my office in Oslo to someone else's office in the US.
>
> I'm wondering: was that always due to bloated equipment along the
> path (including the end hosts), or does Skype poorly handle its
> internal buffers?
>
> Any experiences? I suppose the way to find out is to run Skype over
> a verifiably de-bloated path. If, then, the problem never occurs,
> the fault is with the equipment and not with Skype (and vice versa).
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:09:03 -0800 (PST)
> From: Alex Burr <ajb44.geo@yahoo.com>
> To: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.NET>
> Subject: Re: [Bloat] Skype
> Message-ID:
> <1353254943.93761.YahooMailNeo@web126202.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I have noticed delays - although I don't think multiple seconds -
> but I think that it may be skype trying to make the best of a bad
> connection. I don't have any knowledge of the internals of the skype
> client, but I suspect that they take the view that delayed audio is
> better than incomprehensible audio - I think I have even heard it
> actually repeating the last bit of audio before a glitch, to give
> you a better chance to understand the next bit, and presumably
> catching up when the opportunity arises.
>
> So, an experiment to rule out skype might need to use not just a de-
> bloated path, but one with known packet loss.
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
>> To: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.NET>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:57 PM
>> Subject: [Bloat] Skype
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have repeatedly noticed that Skype sometimes, in a long
>> conversation
>> involving video, can create massive audio delays (in the order of
>> multiple seconds). This has happened to me in a conversation from a
>> hotel room in the US to my home in Oslo (where, apologies, I haven't
>> yet looked into de-bloating my modem and access point), and from my
>> office in Oslo to someone else's office in the US.
>>
>> I'm wondering: was that always due to bloated equipment along the
>> path
>> (including the end hosts), or does Skype poorly handle its internal
>> buffers?
>>
>> Any experiences? I suppose the way to find out is to run Skype over a
>> verifiably de-bloated path. If, then, the problem never occurs, the
>> fault is with the equipment and not with Skype (and vice versa).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bloat mailing list
>> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
>
> End of Bloat Digest, Vol 23, Issue 10
> *************************************
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-19 13:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-19 10:27 Ingemar Johansson S
2012-11-19 10:36 ` Dave Taht
2012-11-19 13:25 ` Michael Welzl [this message]
2012-11-19 18:23 ` Matt Mathis
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-11-18 14:57 Michael Welzl
2012-11-18 16:09 ` Alex Burr
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1AF294D3-4279-4707-B699-EE4C512264B0@ifi.uio.no \
--to=michawe@ifi.uio.no \
--cc=bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox