From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net [64.139.1.69]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8FFB21F38D for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 13:18:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33DDE406057; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 13:17:58 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3 To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net From: Hal Murray Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 13:17:58 -0800 Message-Id: <20150304211758.33DDE406057@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> Cc: Hal Murray Subject: [Bloat] Really really big buffers X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 21:18:29 -0000 > Right now buffers routinely hold 10+ seconds worth of traffic (and Dave T > showed the airline system buffering 10+ MINUTES of traffic) I've seen similar unreasonable delays. I think that's a bug in some firmware. My straw man is that something like a DSL link goes down and the router/modem doesn't flush its queue. A while later, the box at the other end finishes rebooting, the link comes back up, and the packet gets sent on its way. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam.