On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 01:38:31PM -0600, Dave Smith wrote: > > I call bogus. The speed of light would have nothing to do with packet > latency in this case, because as soon as the packets left the campus > network, they would be subject to the usual delays of routers across the > country.
I call bogus on the bogus call. :) Certainly there is at least _some_ correlation between distance and packet latency. After all, there is no way [that I am aware of] that a packet traveling 1000 miles could arrive faster than the time it takes light to travel 1000 miles. Extra letency from the usual delays of routers can certainly limit the reachable distance, but it can't increase it. The author acknowledged that there were sites closer than 500 miles that were unreachable, but noted that there were no sites farther than about 500 miles that could be reached. This seems like a perfectly reasonable conclusion to me. > Given that this was written around 2002, I think the nation's router > density was such that packets would traverse multiple routers between > origination and destination, and that would bunkify any claims that the > speed of light had *anything* to do with packet latency. The observation about router density is interesting, but I don't think it leads to bunkification. -- Andrew McNabb http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/ PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868 -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info (unsubscribe here): http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
