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