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.cut...@consultant.com> wrote: > On Oct 7, 2012, at 4:56 PM, George Herbert <george.herb...@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 <t...@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.cut...@consultant.com > > > > > > > -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
