From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (mail.lang.hm [64.81.33.126]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BF7F21F115 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 20:54:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id r094sLDL013744; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 20:54:21 -0800 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 20:53:05 -0800 (PST) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Mark Allman In-Reply-To: <20130109015942.C08445B056C@lawyers.icir.org> Message-ID: References: <20130109015942.C08445B056C@lawyers.icir.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Hal Murray , bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net 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 04:54:24 -0000 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 > > > >