Subject: (ION) Delay & delay variation

From: Albert Manfredi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 17:12:36 -0500

Below are a couple of simple ping tests to prove the point.

Pinging sanaga.itu.ch [156.106.192.32] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=319ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=347ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=372ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=343ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=359ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=419ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=359ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=488ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=447ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=405ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=439ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=395ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=336ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=334ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=430ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=316ms TTL=48
Reply from 156.106.192.32: bytes=32 time=333ms TTL=48

and

Pinging res.enst.fr [137.194.192.21] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=344ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=328ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=364ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=318ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=299ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=304ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=329ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=305ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=310ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=312ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=313ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=300ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=303ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=326ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=308ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=341ms TTL=231
Reply from 137.194.192.21: bytes=32 time=369ms TTL=231

Now, I know that some folk think that "if you throw as much
bandwidth at the packet-switched backbone as you have on the VC
backbone, this won't be a problem," but that is more religious faith
than mathematical fact.

When you have no congestion avoidance along the path, other than at
best a simple priority scheme, and no mechanism for maintaining
stable paths, it takes pure magic to achieve any form of QoS. Or
pure faith.

But what the heck. As long as you can watch those short porno takes.

Bert
[email-masked]
X-Info: To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
X-Info: 'unsubscribe ion' in the body of the message.