From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 0091821F209 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id D49BC9C; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:34:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDBCE9A; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:34:12 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:34:12 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Stephen Hemminger In-Reply-To: <20131030162534.29f34ada@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Message-ID: References: <20131030162534.29f34ada@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] T-Mobile LTE buffer bloat 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, 30 Oct 2013 23:34:16 -0000 On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > Not surprisingly it has huge bloat and a stupid http proxy that > netalyzer claims rewrites images. This could be done in the provider network, did you try it without the thingie? > How can the uplink side be so bad! 5 seconds??? My personal record for a mobile network is 180 seconds RTT. They *really* *really* want to deliver the packets, and if the radio environment go bad they'll still buffer 400 packets (or so). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se