From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-iy0-f171.google.com (mail-iy0-f171.google.com [209.85.210.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49373201A6F for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 07:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iyi20 with SMTP id 20so674323iyi.16 for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 07:16:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=D2UxsUcoITGyMMkL3ooUKZchdT6q6ArJQTp7s+74xp8=; b=hkzzTKdxWyHfLPL9NVi/cXoxLMYwgeAjqN6PNE9xdzCJ51gv1+YLyNPnYSjGWpWmQT bIs4vw0rDr1e0cPgzXA6St/D9Y6gqRbw8F48lS8J/si0fc//u9U/9wDYcfD8AaKqNcON ekWsozsUN39oh2HlgGZPMfM7OOAdxgFfVUIes= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=VD6bjh05jAlBHDsNihRrVw47ewVXWMVjPP81aPaMy3mEnZmQw37iDVIxwfGxfn/QUK gTUWeSZn5rPd8gxpynTuTOOrUQvkOQJMlM3qwhDvQAp/73zhKEDYqRSOGI6hzMfkPsVo Ja6VTSr7hNFItnx0yU0WOzCVz6AMv5npwq2lE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.131.71 with SMTP id y7mr755277ics.292.1305641801901; Tue, 17 May 2011 07:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.31.201 with HTTP; Tue, 17 May 2011 07:16:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D0840E2CF76@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <4DB70FDA.6000507@mti-systems.com> <4DC2C9D2.8040703@freedesktop.org> <20110505091046.3c73e067@nehalam> <6E25D2CF-D0F0-4C41-BABC-4AB0C00862A6@pnsol.com> <35D8AC71C7BF46E29CC3118AACD97FA6@srichardlxp2> <1304964368.8149.202.camel@tardy> <4DD9A464-8845-49AA-ADC4-A0D36D91AAEC@cisco.com> <1305297321.8149.549.camel@tardy> <8A928839-1D91-4F18-8252-F06BD004E37D@cisco.com> <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D0840E2CF76@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 08:16:41 -0600 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: BeckW@telekom.de Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba212173ce64b904a3796b5d Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Jumbo frames and LAN buffers (was: RE: Burst Loss) 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: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:06:34 -0000 --90e6ba212173ce64b904a3796b5d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:49 AM, wrote: > (I think) Fred wrote: > > Well, the extra delay is solvable in the transport. The question isn't > really what the impact on the > network is; it's what the requirements of > the application are. For voice, if a voice sample is > > delayed 50 ms the jitter buffer in the codec resolves that - microsecon= ds > are irrelevant. > > If you meant 50 microseconds, ignore the rest of this post. > > 50 milliseconds is a *long* time in VoIP. The total mouth-to-ear delay > budget is only 150 ms. Adaptive jitter buffer algorithms choose a buffer > size that is bigger than the observed delay variation. So the additional > delay will be even higher than 50 ms. > > *10* ms in terms of jitter is a *long* time in voip. --=20 Dave T=E4ht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 http://the-edge.blogspot.com --90e6ba212173ce64b904a3796b5d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:49 AM, <BeckW@telekom.de>= ; wrote:
(I think) Fred wrote:
> Well, the extra delay is solvable in the transport. The question isn&#= 39;t really what the impact on the > network is; it's what the requi= rements of the application are. For voice, if a voice sample is
> delayed 50 ms the jitter buffer in the codec resolves that - microseco= nds are irrelevant.

If you meant 50 microseconds, ignore the rest of this post.

50 milliseconds is a *long* time in VoIP. The total mouth-to-ear delay budg= et is only 150 ms. Adaptive jitter buffer algorithms choose a buffer size t= hat is bigger than the observed delay variation. So the additional delay wi= ll be even higher than 50 ms.


*10* ms in terms of jitter is a *long* time in vo= ip.=A0

--
Dave T=E4ht
SKYPE: davetaht
US Tel:= 1-239-829-5608
http://the-edge.blogspot.com
--90e6ba212173ce64b904a3796b5d--