Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels and please dont start a uS NN debate here unless you really want to.

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Fri, 06 February 2015 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921C81A8794; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:13:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.577
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o5JKNCO_HAft; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:13:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63A501A1A06; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:13:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by labpn19 with SMTP id pn19so3123326lab.2; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:13:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=s/Lih7j71PsFzIeHkStpnSMZ+lv0Ayiv3CQHzWevToQ=; b=GmQc9FfVUejMj0hXsHOKyf79VV/zxb9Jo8jTj8nyR0h+mUj0tb0tRcvW8836JEUknF RWdnaRG79UTjPbLhj3PXrCzzYvG9FlheLX/QxhJLzyFQT1hG/YSKeoCmNQLAo0S69S0q PHPOySx3t1vHSGvleFnQSe4vte2y779qiT20mfCU0bF48Mdk459cCABU7pK/vffDh8+p SpUxrVULab+XUqlZiEfAP1F8sxY3q4NedfqsFGslKokL/ZfxBtVz7n9Ic/WXZfQ8MTqX w/11121ToC58zflQ3r5Tkgq9JpOb5rbg/sqon3CMz4zexN+9nEbJAnwGj06Jj/Ykp5dR kiXA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id ti2mr4509217lbb.124.1423249982964; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:13:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:13:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 14:13:02 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Cf1qFMXVn75S8yHaQkxpelXj7rY
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels and please dont start a uS NN debate here unless you really want to.
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
To: Richard Shockey <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a8690a949fd050e7035ae
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 19:13:06 -0000

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Richard Shockey <> wrote:

> RS>  Speaking from personal experience the easiest way to put some
> internet policy wonk to sleep is say the word bufferbloat.  I've tried.

  Sure they gather lots of interesting data but the evidence is consumers
> never use it.  Historically we went through this congestion issue  in the
> late 1990’s with dial up 9600/56k modems etc.  Eventually we all worked
> through it though there was a lot of pain network engineers had to endure.

I never check the ODBII data on my car. Until that is it won't start and I
need a fix.

The smart meter folk had a lot of peculiar ideas. They are not collecting
the data that I or any other home owner needs or wants. What would be
useful to us is knowing electricity use by circuit which means
instrumenting the circuit breaker board or by socket which means even more

Knowing the aggregate use is only of interest if I was worried that my
mains hookup was insufficient.