From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E35D13B2A4; Wed, 15 May 2019 03:32:05 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1557905520; bh=yoObACXRgpkE4Ymn5KlMd5hECIoc57B1Gtdxa6URuQs=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=hDWa3WhMmTcV514f8gITx8YqA7P307l34ngFkFqONmj/fs3km/kXEQa69tTcDsqJ+ 1UJZq1i2qGF9ixIvdDbcCwXKRvENvoLzrzsKPcQblL+wqWFrOs3Et0VxUcicJyohXR sse1iBBNSdFPHu9d5M3moEJYKHiYWxDzgGAny1oI= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [172.17.3.45] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MF3DW-1hT4VE1sl6-00FSYb; Wed, 15 May 2019 09:32:00 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) From: Sebastian Moeller X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: <1557876841.69888745@apps.rackspace.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 09:31:54 +0200 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= , Rich Brown , cerowrt-devel , bloat , Jonathan Foulkes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <25460D05-4F53-4317-9722-2878B160BD7B@gmx.de> References: <2936.1557856670@turing-police> <1557859131.759530583@apps.rackspace.com> <1557871532.754117608@apps.rackspace.com> <87lfz81x7b.fsf@toke.dk> <1557876841.69888745@apps.rackspace.com> To: "David P. Reed" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:jr0/v2MWm+jcCsfq4galiPG2CxOvdx3pV7cMk3+7nLFaj05vxUo TgWH3lM8VlY8WAU8Q3sPHCpVs7LmwciHEz9VSKXBSPXj31kHpa3o08EsEamaH8eqwvAQxUW FzHurczDOfeH413qWPNYUXWDc/q5dWaLEQfwS3EBrIuTRXuLw/4srB7zad2yMfJQWcSiNvn YOM59BJ92pHTrK7cJMZbw== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:IRU7V2Mo0CY=:KLaSjHm0DZpoa4InMM6fbE ZxseYNdlfRhbtAroioI0lMv0kaC53NiIR0ImF+M1WyUvE/qgqduLTMCEuV5xKJouiP9QIja3j jl0RweoosQ3Oq1EDN0JfzdinWNRZ63BSHmw6n26RIi4BIm8wKOZhnLOSbiIkrx6yylWYWLaYJ Epg6Fm4sZWCoub7obPYcseISt4Ebp/vn31iNuqcuHi5rykuKTtXQd9Oux9/LFtwf7F5vBAaOr ijKDBBQrpUxYCVuBZENpgf3W6xjkSd/PP5Z0QSwXLvSvyXIJR5+xUoU/y6nX7d3cG5W+6FwaZ hYcPwMWaLeNRfWNtpFCaA8dgg1ab14/wlAWPHrzMA3xjVisTlmVjTCMGJb4o1Dni+zXt5x4nm PXUE5WghO99tWGMfehRgJftepTRH11Iw0kk2EZ/VmYHhQe13pNKNcv6zVnuoCLkGAWyAavnYa jIo6L+7wnMb/XxD4w60rTziVdiOKCbSqeYbAbIgM6x0yZ2o7LN/QrMmO37H6j2RIkSu/wsANc X/7pcQbxmhAAoaq2vJAN0djwl5VvIg/oVJxn3tIufs3CcNknrnhby3c9Y8Wk8hem0/tW1IfjH M0lN/F8JJjO4CFudZmFwfUjGaN6qMJhMD0haTsQ+TWD3CQegLXPL4Hg8V99AtsEVKTr8UsAUw qD079PbYtY7NeEBsSitjuQV1hYlzh9lSkAuKBS5Agtt86NCZU/8hpFF7yecGB+EzJHwOL6QBN QFVqpxvmFlazPUnsQ93WpIWo/h+10awxCnEOvcZoZFHOmB5i8OaYQQpyTKWviYeWoUk3F7V8h cCpDSX9By2VGpia5BRmCCTnTboqE7hQGlcxf3SuCUV7dtvBxx62S4n9yf5+u54OdmB6xKjBvd dZZepYwn9o2JupTuCFQ1M6JCImKP4Z114LSncN6xpM/GBYKezRbY7xv3SuqJpR809lFG9nhjp BMfgMKl+Fsw== Subject: [Bloat] =?utf-8?q?=28no_subject=29?= X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 07:32:06 -0000 Hi All, I believe the following to be relevant to this discussion: = https://apenwarr.ca/log/20180808 Where he discusses a similar idea including implementation albeit aimed = at lower bandwidth and sans the automatic bandwidth tracking. > On May 15, 2019, at 01:34, David P. Reed wrote: >=20 >=20 > Ideally, it would need to be self-configuring, though... I.e., = something > like the IQRouter auto-measuring of the upstream bandwidth to tune the > shaper. @Jonathan from your experience how tricky is it to get reliable = speedtest endpoints and how reliable are they in practice. And do you do = any sanitization, like take another measure immediate if the measured = rate differs from the last by more than XX% or something like that? >=20 > Sure, seems like this is easy to code because there are exactly two = ports to measure, they can even be labeled physically "up" and "down" to = indicate their function. IMHO the real challenge is automated measurements over the internet at = Gbps speeds. It is not hard to get some test going (by e.g. tapping into = ookla's fast net of confederated measurement endpoints) but getting = something where the servers can reliably saturate 1Gbps+ seems somewhat = trickier (last time I looked one required a 1Gbps connection to the = server to participate in speedtest.net, obviously not really suited for = measuring Gbps speeds). In the EU there exists a mandate for national regulators to establish = and/or endorse an anointed "official" speedtests, untended to keep ISP = marketing honest, that come with stricter guarantees (e.g. the official = German speedtest, breitbandmessung.de will only admit tests if the = servers are having sufficient bandwidth reserves to actually saturate = the link; the enduser is required to select the speed-tier giving them a = strong hint about the required rates I believe). For my back-burner toy project "per-packet-overhead estimation on = arbitrary link technology" I am currently facing the same problem, I = need a traffic sink and source that can reliably saturate my link so I = can measure maximum achievable goodput, so if anybody in the list has = ideas, I am all ears/eyes. >=20 > For reference, the GL.iNet routers are tiny and nicely packaged, and = run > OpenWrt; they do have one with Gbit ports[0], priced around $70. I = very > much doubt it can actually push a gigabit, though, but I haven't had a > chance to test it. However, losing the WiFi, and getting a slightly > beefier SoC in there will probably be doable without the price going > over $100, no? >=20 > I assume the WiFi silicon is probably the most costly piece of = intellectual property in the system. So yeah. Maybe with the right parts = being available, one could aim at $50 or less, without sales channel = markup. (Raspberry Pi ARM64 boards don't have GigE, and I think that = might be because the GigE interfaces are a bit pricey. However, the = ARM64 SoC's available are typically Celeron-class multicore systems. I = don't know why there aren't more ARM64 systems on a chip with dual GigE, = but I suspect searching for them would turn up some). The turris MOX (https://www.turris.cz/en/specification/) might be a = decent startimg point as it comes with one Gbethernet port and both a = SGMII and a PCIe signals routed on a connector, they also have a 4 and = an 8 port switch module, but for our purposes it might be possible to = just create a small single Gb ethernet port board to get started.=20 Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > -Toke >=20 > [0] https://www.gl-inet.com/products/gl-ar750s/ > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel