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
>