From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailgw1.uni-kl.de (mailgw1.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:120::220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DADE83CB37 for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2022 05:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [IPV6:2a02:3035:403:b73c:c532:b657:f0ea:acc4] ([IPv6:2a02:3035:403:b73c:c532:b657:f0ea:acc4]) (authenticated bits=0) by mailgw1.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id 29T9eONZ032578 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2022 11:41:01 +0200 Message-ID: <523c300f-b2da-e2ff-f80b-2138e8263e61@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2022 11:40:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net References: Content-Language: de-DE, en-US From: Erik Auerswald In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.251, tests=HELO_NO_DOMAIN=0.251, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 X-Spam-Score: (0.251) X-Spam-Flag: NO Subject: Re: [Bloat] where home 5G can go south X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2022 09:41:09 -0000 Hi, On 28.10.22 23:10, jf--- via Bloat wrote: >> On Oct 27, 2022, at 11:37 PM, Dave Taht via Bloat wrote: >> >> https://blog.networkprofile.org/redundant-wan-ditching-t-mobile-5g-for-verizon-5g/ >> >> This had some details as to the things that could go wrong from an >> initial happy install of t-mobile, to something terrible. >> > We’ve observed growing variability on some TMHI setups from our fleet, and it seems there is a correlation to usage growth on a single tower. Seems neighbors talk to hear other after all ;-) > > And yes, horrible bufferbloat on these variable capacity links. > >> The author switched to verizon, but what guarantees of continued >> reliability does one have? > > It seems none ATM, as it really depends on user density vs tower capacity. Woe to those that share a tower with a busy highway, ‘rush hour’ likely means low capacity and even higher latencies. As another anecdote: In the German I city where I live, Internet access via 4G usually works well, even though there are noticeable bufferbloat effects for those who know how to look. But when there is a significantly higher number of mobile users, e.g., because of a soccer game or some other event with large attendance, latency goes up and reaches several seconds with just light network usage. Thanks, Erik