From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62AFC208AAD for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 05:47:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2A62016D; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:51:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 4F1D163765; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:46:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5FC63761; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:46:17 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Keith Winstein In-Reply-To: References: <81564C0D7D4D2A4B9A86C8C7404A13DA0801AF@ESESSMB205.ericsson.se> <1354.1357740450@sandelman.ca> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "end2end-interest@postel.org" Subject: Re: [Bloat] [e2e] bufferbloat paper 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: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:47:07 -0000 Thanks for the reply, comments below. >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Winstein writes: >> Have you considered repeating your test with two phones? Keith> Yes, we have tried up to four phones at the same time. >> Can the download on phone1 affect the latency seen by a second phone? Keith> In our experience, a download on phone1 will not affect the unloaded Keith> latency seen by phone2. The cell towers appear to use a per-UE Keith> (per-phone) queue on uplink and downlink. (This is similar to what a Keith> commodity cable modem user sees -- I don't get long delays just Keith> because my neighbor is saturating his uplink or downlink and Keith> causing a Keith> standing queue for himself.) This is good news of a sort. It means that there is no shared xmit queue on the tower, and that the 4G/LTE/whatever-they-call-it-today business of moving voice to VoIP is going to do okay. The question then becomes: how to get all of one's low-latency traffic onto that second channel! -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [