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 4466C21F20C for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id E38B59C; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:26:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3339A; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:26:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:26:57 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Michael Richardson In-Reply-To: <9472.1383179051@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Message-ID: References: <20131030162534.29f34ada@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <9472.1383179051@obiwan.sandelman.ca> 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: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:27:00 -0000 On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, Michael Richardson wrote: > What about the other ports and things? I wonder if the image rewriting > causes additional bloat... I don't really see it causing additional bloat. It might cause additional delays (the device there needs to fetch the image, recode it, and then serve it to the requesting client), but since the data is now hopefully smaller, it shouldn't cause additional buffering. Guess it comes down to how you define "bloat". -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se