From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "mout.gmx.net",
	Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 835AC21F3E0;
	Fri, 15 May 2015 01:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hms-beagle-5.lan ([134.2.89.70]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002)
	with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MfVU3-1YZiso30EF-00P5jr;
	Fri, 15 May 2015 10:55:33 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <8C015B1B-EFBA-4647-AD83-BAFDD16A4AF2@netapp.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 10:55:32 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DF86DC46-FCB9-40B4-840B-F0CD8F7895DD@gmx.de>
References: <CAA93jw65hQvEsTWnW6rxdhw33KVt+N7eeqxcg7w-rPvPqW3H6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<D17AB499.4BF5D%g.white@cablelabs.com>
	<CALQXh-N04E_wJrAyB=qu3kR3cCUj2bmGjWLV+byp3eRFtPZqsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<8C015B1B-EFBA-4647-AD83-BAFDD16A4AF2@netapp.com>
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:8ZDlPnZ3cBQX6jd2f+4frFfqmEOE1u4D4Zmxvv5CBL19fmNgM6a
	MCd1nxZ2/D4+6I0Nq7nmxiWMgbkeLitv2mBFJ4MXLcjj19zoJotVbsPxfj1Ios+tBTiBrMA
	NZMwsuGI3u2A4+aDDy7lgWb7QhnQ16oRhdpXJF9qxB+f+zV0TahDV45LfK8YZNkA1rNcAZM
	O/YHH7N/J6VpOIIETo30Q==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Cc: "Klatsky, Carl" <Carl_Klatsky@cable.comcast.com>,
	"cake@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
	"cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
	<cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] heisenbug: dslreports 16 flow test
	vs	cablemodems
X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat <bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat>
List-Post: <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 08:56:13 -0000

Hi Lars,


On May 15, 2015, at 10:18 , Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com> wrote:

> On 2015-5-15, at 06:44, Aaron Wood <woody77@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ICMP prioritization over TCP?
>=20
> Probably.

	Interesting so far I often heard ICMP echo requests are bad as =
they are often rate-limited and/or processed in a slow path in =
routers...

>=20
> Ping in parallel to TCP is a hacky way to measure latencies; not only =
because of prioritization, but also because you don't measure TCP =
send/receive buffer latencies (and they can be large, auto-tuning is not =
so great.)

	I guess the concurrent ICMP echo requests are a better measure =
for flow separation and sparse-flow-boostiing than inter-flow latency. =
TCP embedded timestamps would be a jacky way to measure those ;) .=20

>=20
> You really need to embed timestamps in the TCP bytestream and echo =
them back. See the recent netperf patch I sent.

	I hope this makes into the main netperf branch=85

Best Regards
	Sebastian

>=20
> Lars
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel