From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jan.ceuleers@gmail.com>
Received: from mailrelay002.isp.belgacom.be (mailrelay002.isp.belgacom.be
	[195.238.6.175])
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1516921F224
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 23:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Belgacom-Dynamic: yes
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoAGAFGeYFNR9I0O/2dsb2JhbABZgwbDCYMPgSMXdIIlAQEFMgEjBg8NEQsLDQkWDwkDAgECAREWHhMIAQGIKAEYAacbm1YKGYEYhXcXjlgWhCMBA5kjhmKMCIMzOw
Received: from 14.141-244-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (HELO zotac.xperim.be)
	([81.244.141.14])
	by relay.skynet.be with ESMTP; 30 Apr 2014 08:58:30 +0200
Received: from [192.168.1.38] (zotac.xperim.be [192.168.1.38])
	by zotac.xperim.be (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2ubuntu2.1) with ESMTP id
	s3U6rk01016735
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:53:46 +0200
Message-ID: <53609DFA.9040708@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:53:46 +0200
From: Jan Ceuleers <jan.ceuleers@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
References: <CAA93jw7YSyT2sQWF7NbNaOr1WW2mJ-tCX=Ks3qpsr+PfHi4pog@mail.gmail.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1404290907240.29282@uplift.swm.pp.se>	<4130D000-FE28-4A5E-B824-3371C1602472@cisco.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1404290954460.29282@uplift.swm.pp.se>	<CAGhGL2Bzo1Jmq0Tu2t-3w+2m4Sy7BpOkBQE-_C3vAg75JZR=2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<87bnvkkr2n.fsf@toke.dk>
In-Reply-To: <87bnvkkr2n.fsf@toke.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Bloat] [aqm] the side effects of 330ms lag in the real world
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: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 06:58:32 -0000

On 04/29/2014 07:01 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> However, as that graph shows, it is quite possible to completely avoid
> bufferbloat by deploying the right shaping. And in that case fibre
> *does* have a significant latency advantage. The best latency I've seen
> to the upstream gateway on DSL has been ~12 ms.

I am not an expert, but I believe that this is due to the use of
interleaving. This is a method to improve the strength of forward error
correction by spreading out the effects of impulse noise on DSL lines
across multiple reed-solomon-protected codewords at the expense of latency.

The topic is briefly discussed on the ADSL Wikipedia page.