They may do some magic with bandwidth delay products.. If that was the case, they may have written it for a standard latency versus something that is unreasonable by interweb standards.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> Date: 04/03/2013 3:35 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Warren Bailey <wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> Cc: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu,nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net vs Mikrotik bandwidth test On 3 Apr 2013, at 23:20, Warren Bailey <wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com<mailto:wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com>> wrote: Try it with upwards of 900ms of variable latency. The last crazy result I got was 146mbit/s on a hardwired 100 mbit link and 1-2ms latency to the speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> server I was using at the time (same data centre). Testing this sort of thing with high latency and jitter is understandably hard, but I didn't see a good reason at the time why it should have been so badly out with good underlying network characteristics. Nick Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org<mailto:n...@foobar.org>> Date: 04/03/2013 3:04 PM (GMT-08:00) To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu<mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Speedtest Results speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> vs Mikrotik bandwidth test On 3 Apr 2013, at 22:48, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu<mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: > (If anybody's got evidence of it reporting more than the link is technically > capable of, feel free to correct me...) I've seen speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> give results significantly greater than the physical bw of the client's network link. Nick
