On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Jan Ceuleers <jan.ceuleers@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

Depending on the interleave depth you get extra latency. But there are also different schemes you can use

Interleave, the one that basically came with ADSL.

Phyr, Broadcom evolution on interleave, that has less latency, I believe, in most cases.

G.INP, which I have been told is a standardized version of Phyr.

All of these will affect the latency and by how much is also dependant on the configuration you have done on your DSLAM. To add to the mess, not all DSLAM's support phyr or g.inp and then up the complexity a bit with CPE that supports one, two or all three of the technologies.

Ohh some ISPs might even not use interleave and just have the DSLAM setup to do Fastmode/Fastpath or what the vendor decided to name the feature.

Pedro

_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

--
Best regards / Mvh
Jan Pedro Tumusok