From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <oliver@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>
Received: from mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de
	[IPv6:2001:470:96b9:4:130:149:220:252])
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762D521F159
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Mon,  7 Jan 2013 18:15:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (ibis.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de
	[IPv6:2001:470:96b9:1:14cb:af2e:2e24:2838])
	by mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5FFD14C3710
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Tue,  8 Jan 2013 03:15:48 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 03:15:47 +0100
From: Oliver Hohlfeld <oliver@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>
To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
Message-ID: <20130108021546.GA24568@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>
References: <20130107233732.GE3635@nuttenaction>
	<20130107175417.3b87e0ce@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130107175417.3b87e0ce@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
X-Operating-System: Linux ibis 2.6.32-33-generic 
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [Bloat] Bufferbloat Paper
X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat <bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat>
List-Post: <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 02:15:50 -0000

On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 05:54:17PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> The tone of the paper is a bit of "if academics don't analyze it to death
> it must not exist".

This does not reflect statements made in the paper; The paper
does acknowledge the /existence/ of the problem.

What the paper discusses is the frequency / extend of the problem.
Using data representing residential users in multiple countries,
I can basically confirm the papers statement that high rtts are not 
widely observed. The causes for high rtts are multifold and include
more than just bufferbloat. My data also suggests that it is
a problem that does not frequently occur. One reason being that
users do not often utilize their uplink.

> The facts are interesting, but the interpretation ignores
> the human element.

Indeed.

> If human's perceive delay "Daddy the Internet is slow", then
> they will change their behavior to avoid the problem: "it hurts when I download,
> so I will do it later".

Speculative, but one interpretation. Chances that downloads hurt
are small.

Oliver