Re: [Bloat] number of home routers with ingress AQM

[Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>]

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for the data.

On April 2, 2019 4:14:34 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Foulkes <jf@jonathanfoulkes.com> wrote:
>Responses below
>
>> On Apr 2, 2019, at 8:10 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
>wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>> 
>>> I just wondered if anybody has any reasonable estimate how many
>end-users actually employ fair-queueing AQMs with active ECN-marking
>for ingress traffic @home? I am trying to understand whether L4S
>approach to simply declare these as insignificant in number is
>justifiable?
>> 
>> If more than 0.01% of HGWs did this I'd be extremely surprised.
>
>My observation is that the number is very small, even devices with SQM
>services, rarely see them enabled, and when they are, are set to
>sub-optimal values. 
>I see Sebastian doing a valiant, even heroic effort at addressing
>technical users questions on forums, but even those users seem confused
>at times.
>
>> 
>>> I know in openwrt with sqm that is the default, but I have no idea
>about
>> 
>> To configure ingress shaping you actually have to know the speed and
>configure it. It's not the default. Also, it's useless if the transport
>network queues the packets at lower rate than at what you receive it.
>When I used my DOCSIS connection it routinely forwarded packets at
>lower rates than what I bought (and had configured the ingress shaper
>for).
>
>As noted in other responses, the actual throughput needs to be measured
>and then monitored to ensure the ingress shaping is aligned with
>current capacity of the link. And not just the HGW to BNG, but just as
>importantly, account for any constraints in backhaul from the BNG.

Sure, but for the most part I have been limited either by the access link/BNG-shaper or limited peering/transit between my ISP and specific target servers, and in the second case I would hate to slow everything to a crawl just because my ISP and say YouTube try to Duke out who should pay for access, content to eyeballs or vice versa...

>
>> 
>>> the number of devices that actually use sqm in the field; @Jonathan:
>does evenroute have numbers you are willing to share, like total
>numbers or % of iqrouters with ecn-marking ingress routing active?
>
>@Sebastian, 100% of IQrouters running firmware 3.x (which uses Cake as
>the default AQM) respect/use ECN. This has been shipping since
>September, 2018. All existing v2 IQrouters (first ship January 2017)
>may upgrade to 3x (user initiated, but one-click).
>As for split, 70% of deployed IQrouters are doing ECN today. 

Excellent, thanks so most of them....


>As for count, well, that’s private.

I had a hunch, that would be the case ;) . Understandable, though.

>But the good new is we have ISP customers
>rolling them out at a good clip. 
>Turns out that having a sane traffic manager at the HGW on every node
>of a DSLAM is very good for the DSLAM, the backhaul and the actual
>users, who quit screaming at the ISP ;-)

Oh, nice, I fully agree upstream AQM is a case where the goals and incentives for end-users and ISPs seem well aligned.


>
>> 
>> ISP networks typically looks like this in the ISP->HGW direction:
>> 
>> BNG->L2->L2->HGW
>> 
>> This is the same regardless if it's DSL, DOCSIS, FTTH/PON or
>whatever. So shaping is done egress on BNG and it tries to send at
>lower rate than any of the L2 devices. Generally there is no ingress
>shaping of any kind on the HGW, it doesn't even know what speed the
>subscription is.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bloat mailing list
>> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.