From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from alpha.coverfire.com (dsiemon-2-pt.tunnel.tserv21.tor1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1c:44e::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6303221F1FE for ; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:38:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.88.98] (ganymede.home [69.41.199.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by alpha.coverfire.com (8.14.7/8.14.6) with ESMTP id rBM1cfx9014097 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 21 Dec 2013 20:38:42 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=coverfire.com; s=alpha2011102501; t=1387676323; bh=XCEbYOJ4gT70EYaCEtjEtNcTxlFgYdP2P5Tfp+ikrns=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=dxdIW7nKAIfr/IYCiD/TJgG5me7Xy/aiIheSGM44+9kGhmW41R6e62QKRDRmHkq7M ENVtWqpeiE59c8XoFOQjlEDt202opevHgvNS8QcQVioZnbsIYW+mVNqXsTomOlqqBz gPUuRkdFCTih/jT1G7NT3H6ahOvrutgSRFk0FTvA= Message-ID: <1387676321.2098.4.camel@ganymede.home> From: Dan Siemon To: Sebastian Moeller Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 20:38:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <15B33C3B-4F1D-4CC6-AC24-CA8926047D38@gmx.de> References: <20131203222559.GV8066@einstein.kenyonralph.com> <7ieh5pew2d.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <87haakx1ev.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <09D8F3A0-7172-4677-9887-119813E28740@gmx.de> <877gbfcw4t.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <87vbyzb5fl.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <15B33C3B-4F1D-4CC6-AC24-CA8926047D38@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.3 (3.10.3-1.fc20) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 69.41.199.58 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on alpha.coverfire.com Cc: bloat , Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [Bloat] curious..... X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 01:38:47 -0000 On Sun, 2013-12-08 at 20:02 +0100, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > About prioritizing, I am less optimistic as I can not see how the system can behave well under extreme load; I for one would be quite unhappy if an device on my internal network could effectively DOS my ability to make phone calls (I switched to IP telephony so this theoretical issue has become practical for me). > Or put it that way, I hope that the core internet is over-provided and will not cause congestion, at the same time I want to be able to max out my internet connection and still be able to phone. Making it impossible for an internal host to DOS VoIP quality is one of the reasons I've been playing with per host fairness in addition to three priority levels (per host). The tc script is below with a link to performance results. http://git.coverfire.com/?p=linux-qos-scripts.git;a=blob;f=src-3tos.sh;hb=HEAD