From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com (mail-ie0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) (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 EFDC421F115 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 21:13:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id c12so1531444ieb.23 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:13:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=PK/LeL1qf5NiSqt3WJalSm0TMXHJ4dXf+Ebr10QigTA=; b=j45fBXCmO4TX3hFGuTtzG1e4BetyzScecqc2SeCEyKvg+z/ZhboZ+gzOYcLmHCMwjt bJ3pioUPZl30TRI9M/fp8mBB55M+vXzFmS5vC+aFHsU33X/8VGllyPWekt9BIS7IiDSz FiFZC1Q7AumxXlL/kp9V1W0HavgFJiAoKEdj/Tu3fLIrmQyomgJyvchheFLjMZUvAkHG 0vXxsMKihSvMaC+HUy0UaAzybBkXcSCyqsSpVMd0EORsmls7/n0qtt4Pd7ELcdhm6i9K bweMiF/e6Jqgu3m/G4Ky341CIvilrslecVrwuxdylXx5iW30unLSaJ0K6zx2WO1edrqI PA8w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.0.176 with SMTP id 16mr308730igf.70.1357708397283; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:13:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.112.200 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 21:13:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.112.200 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 21:13:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20130109015942.C08445B056C@lawyers.icir.org> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:13:16 +0200 Message-ID: From: Jonathan Morton To: David Lang Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f5030eeba89b604d2d41e9b Cc: Hal Murray , bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] bufferbloat paper 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: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 05:13:18 -0000 --e89a8f5030eeba89b604d2d41e9b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 > --e89a8f5030eeba89b604d2d41e9b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think the point being made here was that the FTTH homes were talking t= o DSL hosts via P2P a lot.

- Jonathan Morton

On Jan 9, 2013 6:54 AM, "David Lang" &= lt;david@lang.hm> 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. =A0(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. =A0It also could be somewhere before incoming traffic gets anywhere close to any of the CCZ gear. =A0E.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 wer= e in a fiber-to-the-home experimental area that had 1G all the way to the h= ouses, 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. =A0Again, see the paper and the note I sent this morning. =A0The measurements are
taken between our monitor (which is outside the local homes) and the
remote host somewhere out across the Internet. =A0We are measuring
wide-area and remote-side networks, not the local FTTH network.

allman




_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@list= s.bufferbloat.net
= https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
--e89a8f5030eeba89b604d2d41e9b--