I think the point being made here was that the FTTH homes were talking to DSL hosts via P2P a lot. - Jonathan Morton On Jan 9, 2013 6:54 AM, "David Lang" wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Mark Allman wrote: > > Did any of their 90 homes contained laptops connected over WiFi? >>>> >>> >>> Almost certinly, >>> >> >> Yeah - they nearly for sure did. (See the note I sent to bloat@ this >> morning.) >> >> but if the connection from the laptop to the AP is 54M and the >>> connection from the AP to the Internet is 1G, you are not going to >>> have a lot of buffering taking place. You will have no buffering on >>> the uplink side, and while you will have some buffering on the >>> downlink side, 54M is your slowest connection and it takes a >>> significantly large amount of data in flight to fill that for seconds. >>> >> >> 54Mbps *might* be your slowest link. It also could be somewhere before >> incoming traffic gets anywhere close to any of the CCZ gear. E.g., if >> the traffic is from my DSL line the bottleneck will be < 1Mbps and on my >> end of the connection. >> > > Wait a min here, from everything prior to this it was sounding like you > were in a fiber-to-the-home experimental area that had 1G all the way to > the houses, no DSL involved. > > Are we all minunderstanding this? > > David Lang > > But, regardless, none of this matters for the results presented in the >> paper because our measurements factor out the local residences. Again, >> see the paper and the note I sent this morning. The measurements are >> taken between our monitor (which is outside the local homes) and the >> remote host somewhere out across the Internet. We are measuring >> wide-area and remote-side networks, not the local FTTH network. >> >> allman >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/**listinfo/bloat >