From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp80.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (smtp80.ord1d.emailsrvr.com [184.106.54.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BDFE3CB35 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 09:51:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp19.relay.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp19.relay.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id EF86E602B3; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 09:51:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Auth-ID: jfoulkes@evenroute.com Received: by smtp19.relay.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: jfoulkes-AT-evenroute.com) with ESMTPSA id A93CF6029B; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 09:51:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: jfoulkes@evenroute.com Received: from jonathans-mbp.lan (h26.135.213.151.dynamic.ip.windstream.net [151.213.135.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.7.12); Tue, 02 Apr 2019 09:51:15 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\)) From: Jonathan Foulkes In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 09:51:15 -0400 Cc: bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2AF5DB6A-E4AE-4244-81EE-4AF203F4B283@evenroute.com> References: To: Mikael Abrahamsson , Sebastian Moeller X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 19:57:16 -0400 Subject: Re: [Bloat] number of home routers with ingress AQM 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: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 13:51:16 -0000 Responses below > On Apr 2, 2019, at 8:10 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson = wrote: >=20 > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >=20 >> 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? >=20 > 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.=20 I see Sebastian doing a valiant, even heroic effort at addressing = technical users questions on forums, but even those users seem confused = at times. >=20 >> I know in openwrt with sqm that is the default, but I have no idea = about >=20 > 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. >=20 >> 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. As for = count, well, that=E2=80=99s private. But the good new is we have ISP = customers rolling them out at a good clip.=20 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 ;-) >=20 > ISP networks typically looks like this in the ISP->HGW direction: >=20 > BNG->L2->L2->HGW >=20 > 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. >=20 > --=20 > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat