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 7A3C721F0F2 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:14:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A462016D; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:19:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 772201C1D6; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:14:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66D1F1FD69; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:14:02 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: mallman@icir.org In-Reply-To: <20130108135510.EF4CA59F9BA@lawyers.icir.org> References: <20130108135510.EF4CA59F9BA@lawyers.icir.org> 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:14:59 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "Mark" =3D=3D Mark Allman writes: Mark> less than 1Gbps, but I forget the actual wireless technology used= on Mark> the IHR). The IHRs are all run into a switch (SW) at 1Gbps. The Mark> switch connects to the Internet via a 1Gbps link (so, this is a Mark> theoretical bottleneck right here ...). The "REH" is the remote = end Mark> host. We monitor via mirroring on SW. 1) do you max out your 1Gb/s uplink at all? 2) have you investigated bufferbloat on that port of the switch? (and do you have congestion issues on your mirror port? I guess that the point of the loss analysis...) Mark> (3) This data is not ideal. Ideally I'd like to directly Mark> measure queues=20 Mark> in a bazillion places. That'd be fabulous. But, I am working wi= th Mark> what I have. I have traces that offer windows into the actual qu= eue Mark> occupancy when the local users I monitor engage particular remote Mark> endpoints. Is this representative of the delays I'd find when the Mark> local users are not engaging the remote end system? I have no Mark> idea. I'd certainly like to know. But, the data doesn't tell me. Mark> I am reporting what I have. It is something. And, it is more th= an Mark> I have seen reported anywhere else. Folks should go collect more Mark> data. Thank you for this. =2D-=20 ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh network= s [=20 ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect= [=20 ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails = [=20 =09 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAUO3PioqHRg3pndX9AQK0bQP+LPj9pZHwOxvAqDFoWrAqGH6Rdmhk2qqp AlVJJTFtTKuaQGCwLbul5tjg8/M5k0BXD1lhyDMP7QbIY+/l/54d7BYCWgJcHIdA xjwq5nVvMLcfPgla/kmjFPj3/9tdz6V/rTXAHHPhfcaPoeafEgTV4AvHIxpi26jl cW8mqkFFLYM= =cfGf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--