Typical additional latency for CGN?

George Herbert george.herbert at gmail.com
Sun Oct 7 21:55:02 UTC 2012


Sorry, at a conference and not paying enough attention to email.  My bad.

-george

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Cutler James R
<james.cutler at consultant.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2012, at 4:56 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone
>> company's outbound web proxies, internet games company, and
>> image-intensive home furnishings website, the CGNs delivered content
>> faster than the main website could, regardless of increasing its
>> bandwidth.  Latency problems with the CGNs were less than the main
>> websites' latency problems, on the average.
>>
>> There were days that was not true, and days we had to re-re-re-reset
>> the CGN contents, and the day the @#$#@$% game programmers screwed up
>> the CGN calls, but on the whole it was among the least performance
>> limiting / impeding features of the sites in question.
>>
>>
>> -george
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Tom Limoncelli <tal at 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.
>>>
>>> I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have
>>> measurements from early-world deployments.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> --
>>> Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference
>>> http://EverythingSysadmin.com  -- my blog
>>> http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos
>
> Huh?  I had presumed that CGN was Carrier Grade NAT, not a proxy service.  Help me understand.
>
> James R. Cutler
> james.cutler at consultant.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com



More information about the NANOG mailing list