Re: [Bloat] DSLReports Speed Test has latency measurement built-in

[jb <justin@dslr.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2700 bytes --]

IPv6 is now available as an option, you just select it in the preferences
pane.

Unfortunately only one of the test servers (in Michigan) is native dual
stack so the test is then fixed to that location. In addition the latency
pinging during test is stays as ipv4 traffic, until I setup a web socket
server on the ipv6 server.

All the amazon google and other cloud servers do not support ipv6. They do
support it as an edge network feature, like as a load balancing front end,
however the test needs custom server software and custom code, and using a
cloud proxy that must then talk to an ipv4 test server inside the cloud is
rather useless. It should be native all the way. So until I get more native
ipv6 servers, one location it is.

Nevertheless as a proof of concept it works. Using the hurricane electric
ipv6 tunnel from my australian non ipv6 ISP, I get about 80% of the speed
that the local sydney ipv4 test server would give.


On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Aaron Wood <woody77@gmail.com> wrote:

> Toke,
>
> I actually tend to see a bit higher latency with ICMP at the higher
> percentiles.
>
>
> http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/fixing-bufferbloat-on-comcasts-blast.html
>
> http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/measured-bufferbloat-on-orangefr-dsl.html
>
> Although the biggest "boost" I've seen ICMP given was on Free.fr's network:
>
> http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/01/bufferbloat-or-lack-thereof-on-freefr.html
>
> -Aaron
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk>
> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> Why not? They can be a quite useful measure of how competing traffic
>> >> performs when bulk flows congest the link. Which for many
>> >> applications is more important then the latency experienced by the
>> >> bulk flow itself.
>> >
>> > One clear objection is that ICMP is often prioritised when UDP is not.
>> > So measuring with UDP gives a better indication in those cases.
>> > Measuring with a separate TCP flow, such as HTTPing, is better still
>> > by some measures, but most truly latency-sensitive traffic does use
>> > UDP.
>>
>> Sure, well I tend to do both. Can't recall ever actually seeing any
>> performance difference between the UDP and ICMP latency measurements,
>> though...
>>
>> -Toke
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bloat mailing list
>> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4429 bytes --]