[157152] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Typical additional latency for CGN?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joseph.snyder@gmail.com)
Mon Oct 8 08:39:56 2012
In-Reply-To: <933EBEE8-9802-453B-8E30-F583D5C7756A@delong.com>
From: joseph.snyder@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 08:39:36 -0400
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>,Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
>On Oct 7, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 7, 2012 1:48 PM, "Tom Limoncelli" <tal@whatexit.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical
>>> internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes.
>>>
>>
>> Anecdote. Sub-millasecond, with full load. (gigs and gigs) . CGN does
>not
>> meaningfully add latency. CGN is not enough of a factor to impact
>happy
>> eyeballs in a way that improves ipv6 use.
>>
>>> I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have
>>> measurements from early-world deployments.
>>>
>>
>> Most mobile providers have been doing what is commonly called cgn for
>5 to
>> 10 years. CGN is not a new concept or implementation for mobile.
>>
>
>True, but, as we have discussed before, mobile users, especially in the
>US,
>have dramatically lowered expectations of internet access from their
>mobile
>devices vs. what they expect from a household ISP.
>
>We expect half the services we want to be crippled by mobile carriers
>because
>they don't like competition. We file lawsuits when that happens on our
>terrestrial connections.
>
>Owen
Except now you have to do mediation, since class action lawsuits are now null and void. :)
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
