From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x432.google.com (mail-wr1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46D803CB35 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 23:02:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr1-x432.google.com with SMTP id p4so35463254wrt.7 for ; Thu, 03 Jan 2019 20:02:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=8hkpQmWE6BQt10zjZ9Axj4i+cKF/g/oKlU7SRkFcbSM=; b=UseSnvkWgaOBRps6cYR1r/fLpIx5DQSs4UxsCo55Og9B/Ly4iNlXT/fNJ06I4TfRY0 L/VKpOh14zXXa+F/d1Ws1tRIbuBrtxNlPqgRwWfCMVmCqqPd1X/pE8jP+lT+gL1la6Gv +ygRZE8D0aPPlLHTKyxfgfrOJ8jJSTy/eoET7/3VSKLhqVYar9zmRvwqJbt5w/7b6jMG ETP96iC7j8jnzZTJLWoXqZkq7pJP+H+KaEF7A5Y7uOY4yKUUKvQHjtwBuR2ItUF1jmKe riw1RB4DKhO8XZA7C7pp6f908FTKsp/Htb584ns+kGZVRHS6u9tWWfSYo7DGT4mn4I/N yQBA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=8hkpQmWE6BQt10zjZ9Axj4i+cKF/g/oKlU7SRkFcbSM=; b=io/KRBVMGHNvYSkhkRdwrDp3DlqhGpu00tlIQcwC96Der/SvWinyuqReKM2hLaHkX3 qgQ3Wv1K1No1h1WyEvW4/E8vgHJrJZDvKdvQ4g19O3dSjJfWHWnXGdV676PCVZ8y7rpW nU8ZsCUWJJrc/zL8k7pxdkpqtl7G2pT1SMoAz1tkZOTu2XDW6seXXbauk0RLKjEKVZWk SrsLbfwtcYV1apN7PXuH/8RK9Asvd83iPRtPkswlygdfjceX8s1HwYAluY0pcjXZ1Fp6 2UdSto/PkdJ7lwP5UP19+KJw8g1uFG+UXJpfLSeuEI4qehABdfjN5N2SO7d2meKaR367 pBNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfrCuSVkizIln0TjeF1s3l4H7AdR7cYOdKAOdp4KUqrCCJlocYj wjAV8OeSHK7kHT+q9oEI7xw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4P1rE4qsvYqaOPYJsZTTIBX3LWsVTrTs1yFVcEdO7ho8cNFSpbVzljTFKxBG5Ec2Dia0ZtgA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:b201:: with SMTP id u1mr42907893wra.165.1546574545367; Thu, 03 Jan 2019 20:02:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (83-245-238-230-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi. [83.245.238.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g9sm59030wmg.44.2019.01.03.20.02.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Jan 2019 20:02:24 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 06:01:54 +0200 Cc: bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7E8C6E8C-0609-4D73-88F0-D20B01F6B471@gmail.com> References: To: cloneman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Subject: Re: [Bloat] Does VDSL interleaving+FEC help bufferbloat? 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: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 04:02:26 -0000 > On 3 Jan, 2019, at 11:38 pm, cloneman = wrote: >=20 > tl-dr; interesting to test weather interleave+FEC, a technology = designed for layer 1 noise, can help with layer 3 ingress contention for = resources. I'm reasonably sure it has no effect on bufferbloat. You're not even = trying to measure latency in your tests so far, only packet loss, which = is completely different. Interleave would tend to increase baseline = latency, but probably has no effect on the queue. Only changing the queue length, or inserting an AQM (which shortens the = *effective* queue length) would affect bufferbloat. - Jonathan Morton=