Re: [nznog] ADSL Rate Limiting on the line.
Well, I've never met Bruce, and I do read Aardvark most days, but I think it would be good to get someone that really _knows_ what the impact of reducing the line speed on latency will be. We have a few dslams here for testing but they're been used for real work right now. Anyone _know_ what the effect will be? Cheers - Neil G
Richard Nelson
22/10/2004 12:44:56 p.m. Maybe you misread it, there is a 'but' in the sentance:
Hi guys,
Reading todays article on http://www.aardvark.co.nz/ he raves on about 'increased latency'
Would I be right in saying the latency would only increase on lower speed jetstream plans - as it takes longer for the packets to pass over a smaller pipe.
Why is he talking about it increasing latency on full rate jetstream
"This will likely increase latency for all but those on the full-speed JetStream plans ..." Richard. Craig Spiers wrote: plans?
Cheers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog NOTICE: This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify Allied Telesyn Research Ltd immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender has the authority to issue and specifically states them to be the views of Allied Telesyn Research.
On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 13:57 +1300, neil gardner wrote:
We have a few dslams here for testing but they're been used for real work right now.
Anyone _know_ what the effect will be?
Reducing the serialisation rate will increase the latency of any communication medium. This is a fairly fundamental fact. A slower serialisation rate will take longer to get the bits onto the wire, and they will take longer to travel down the wire, both of which increase the latency of the link. Although the following paper has a much broader focus that just the effect of serialisation delay, it does show that serialisation delays have a large effect on the latency of layer 2 links. Ravi S. Prasad and Constantinos Dovrolis and Bruce A. Mah, The Effect of Layer-2 Store-and-Forward Devices on Per-Hop Capacity Estimation, http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/574528.html -- Matt Brown Email: matt(a)mattb.net.nz GSM: +64 21 611 544
On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 13:57, neil gardner wrote:
Well, I've never met Bruce, and I do read Aardvark most days, but I think it would be good to get someone that really _knows_ what the impact of reducing the line speed on latency will be.
We have a few dslams here for testing but they're been used for real work right now.
Anyone _know_ what the effect will be?
We can estimate some of the effects.
Back of envelope calculations (ok, I lied, I have machines that can do
this sort of stuff).
Time taken to send 1 bit at 8,000,000 bits/second: 125ns
Time taken to send 1 bit at 288,000 bits/second : 3.47us
Average SYN and SYN+ACK packet size: 60 bytes / 480 bits
Average ACK (w/out data) : 52 bytes / 416 bits
Time to send SYN/SYN+ACK @ 8Mbps : 60us
Time to send SYN/SYN+ACK @ 288Kbps: 1.67ms
Time to send ACK @ 8Mbps : 52us
Time to send ACK @ 288Kbps: 1.44ms
TCP 3-way handshake at 8Mbps : 172us
TCP 3-way handshake at 288Kbps: 4.78ms
TCP handshake increase: 4.61ms (or nearly 2800%)
I'm ignoring ATM overhead here, so these figures are going to be
somewhat higher in the real world, but it serves to give you an idea
anyway. I used the 288Kbps figure as it was used earlier in this thread.
I can understand that from Telecom's perspective, moving the
ratelimiting out to the edges of their network a more scalable way to do
things. That doesn't mean I have to like it though, I'm going to miss
leeching from JSG :-)
Regards,
Nic.
P.S. Disclaimer: I occasionally have brain farts; my maths may be wrong.
--
Nic Bellamy
On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 14:57, Nic Bellamy wrote:
TCP handshake increase: 4.61ms (or nearly 2800%) [snip] I can understand that from Telecom's perspective, moving the ratelimiting out to the edges of their network a more scalable way to do things. That doesn't mean I have to like it though, I'm going to miss leeching from JSG :-)
I just had another thought (or possibly a repressed memory).
Although in the sort term we'll see increased latency while both this
and the current packet-based shaping is in effect, when this is fully
rolled out, it would make sense for them to get rid of the current
packet-based shaping systems.
We may find that eliminating the latency introduced by the current
shapers offsets, cancels out, or possibly even gives us a net gain in
regards to latency. That would be nice.
Regards,
Nic.
--
Nic Bellamy
At 10:57 a.m. 22/10/2004, you wrote:
Anyone _know_ what the effect will be?
This is a well written explanation of the AU ADSL situation wrt latency: http://adsl.internode.on.net/faq/using-internode-adsl.htm#faq12a yun (who hopes to move to NZ next year :) -- (__) "smurf unto others Yun Huang Yong `\------(oo) Squeak!! as we would like gumby(a)mooh.org || (__) --' others to smurf unto us" goosmurf(a)yahoo.com \|/ ||w--|| \|/ -- papa smurf --
participants (4)
-
Matt Brown
-
neil gardner
-
Nic Bellamy
-
Yun Huang Yong