From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AE2121F21F; Fri, 16 May 2014 01:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id l18so4491150wgh.11 for ; Fri, 16 May 2014 01:12:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ojZiHDfrP7sYxuYhbEmXx8kdRqu1RVLP9OB0Ihc3PJM=; b=CTwfCDN8kLi4QXqrRFrLjrqcxyVXtk/tkIY7duETbd6lwyZxmnASY1O2sbxMfYSODm Ve2TYctcvK2yVqI3L587phs5SIJtrAlhx6qwcvVtMg71rNX6DrqKPR2WGnyLcT76Gr/G jyS64+kS1U5S5xySoMKt9nNgNJoS8O+PYd6KPYV5rMBuAn471jJJtW6OezY4dkKQ03CI YCZaDKTeNx8bknv6LL97yVSpYocB88mHwDAS8+shSafgXPxSJjYfv/8EJIGerc/FRcbC SKQ6N5V2B0kzPAJ7X2XJbABjeX7UIOknHvpIoO+oJNB20agMc4Vlpv2UEVSnKEIsgPFH YirA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.19.167 with SMTP id g7mr12523403wie.46.1400227940151; Fri, 16 May 2014 01:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.207.82 with HTTP; Fri, 16 May 2014 01:12:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1400227729.32180.1156.camel@pc2> References: <1400227729.32180.1156.camel@pc2> Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 01:12:20 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Laurent GUERBY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cerowrt-devel , bloat Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] fast lanes X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 08:12:22 -0000 On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Laurent GUERBY wrote: > On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 18:03 -0700, Dave Taht wrote: >> A side note: It's taken me a long time to finally realize what was >> wrong with level3's recent blog posting here: >> >> http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/observations-internet-middlem= an/ >> >> The loss chart on the right here that they show to support their >> argument that the current interconnects are "incurring excessive delay >> and loss" fails utterly to support their argument - >> >> http://blog.level3.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/route_info_1.jpg >> >> It SHOULD show diurnal variance, and doesn't. The loss rates it shows >> are both consistent and quite low, compared to the bandwidth being >> used up, (indicating more of a cabling problem? or excessive load on >> the other switch? or?) > > The right graph is in log scale while the left i linear, > I'd say they show the same pattern. No, loss is flat where bandwidth is maxed, they should - even with a log sc= ale have a huge increase in loss when bandwidth is maxed. > > As for loss rate, may be the real "big" loss number is on another > interface in the chain. All I'm saying is the graph doesn't seem to back the assertions, and merely seems to be tracking a background errors on the link. Yes, I'd love the loss and delay numbers. > Sincerely, > > Laurent > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_= indecent.article