From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (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 5C2BD3CB35 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 08:35:22 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1554208514; bh=037ePHDHf7ZLze7NA/KUbi59nEVeEL8aPfUQSYrdPU0=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Az+vzQHdEa/fFDnUPe7MxamB+kS0pnFh7+kqxhhcLuXWx17WZtIygEJfpg61ypLRL VmXKZwxIAgIgoqAACNuTzEBETYba4CiJzmFGF2lusdglYSE20o2vYsdY+4P6YS3B0R F5LOtLxEAM+M5rK28mTD4RjCDgIwk6Oig8C1P7mo= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [172.16.12.10] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lj1jy-1gezYS1Jok-00dGWn; Tue, 02 Apr 2019 14:35:14 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 14:35:11 +0200 Cc: bloat , Jonathan Foulkes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <47CA8CDA-3060-40C2-AC0A-04899F08C9DE@gmx.de> References: To: Mikael Abrahamsson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:jW2SbiOmhXcKvgCSyaiP1xa3+J5b7hi4rSqgAI4kZecuVhKVamg lLRGOfqlnMPOcb+fXdZ1mnh16A4BPIulcMbdr4WxwFoZPuA/VqVepSzKAjW0jzNAhZQ2rU5 tNw7xSd8zP8d1OsjQ6Sjz7SQxGxXYslYTIYyaBPbLx0GfjQFC4V6HeMQGL3JYbXokSJ3d6D D3hBb6Z60Hm7VvatgFeRQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:SGhvzJe2pUU=:7ydZdz8qt89fpeC0WCqnhI QPw26opJG2zJXdIUN+/5MI/8GioHtqGwPwdzsE/3WqRx06tIQW3gO07or67KJIy0MHnWhNP8R wcDtHLheqLh7gGF2tpsKMrsp6II98xQLMHe0ovh5976Zx1dz9XssEW4htW3j3wl+fsQXWFi86 DFhS8dfuSoiPckQLWiNM+V+1c4PlBBBOgSL/TetX3A1dts+TVinvoLiuxiNfceiIFDKIQvMzj PR+Dl2MtTtfyG0cOcXozJ0heBqckeNWqZmwjFIN2txifVGyfoiC2ETEAdD7XPJ2/nP9qDfhc6 RKv8b3Gw6L68ubjZjssxxbMgKv0jNx+AaQLcztFRiicIZgxu6vxH7yKK3tvAFPcXahh6Ou5oE R2nH+dcCCg4IwJ2mJwRI51DISaeaDGB8S+JBEy0kNLRGhM+v5OUFrpkGSBZzArUGclpK/pOoL Y1063nddi4kn9LzEGmGWUYvtauIMdCbhRe5e+3X1Nv9IFmxuvoX/XSWgW+FGO2a4UeOa98JHq 2EW8bqfO6q6OTKbFpalm/70ib0SOZuir3UqAwhqrRxJSEk38W/MZqhzZ9BmbhHhxtqK3nLI44 U9+MFZzKLavf6oTYUo6l8Jk64Yl4ErP4/ZF8G1aCQiMsrDNc+JMWn6DooozY/E9ELEUHLd6xd AvEcGcDO+rJMg/GdiCh1GdcMYyO0yjFDRXOKVcLnDpKW0cUmnOx771q0zRHPM31vEbsOr2oPa ziviFJ121piGj66BU0UEwx4SshXPv7REUKAM0GGCu4flyW9Tt5rtDRmrx9Do07KF5lb1Ki9PX WC8O1WxMp9rkpJplBt7tscoEXkIzVYsnErgxzkD4Ln4Ne59zLO9IWHUlenI1/mTBDT5jsUlHh 3+y1z9g9pd2tC6hMIX3dsqTAK+FGunD34M/Gl/Q9HhHqaPQxP9pGrqn4moLO83ITMGlCEtm3e zsFQpJn1TIg== 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 12:35:22 -0000 HI Mikael, > On Apr 2, 2019, at 14:10, 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. Me too, but still I want to see numbers, plus those are likely = those end-users that could be won-over by L4S as theses obvipusly would = be receptive for the "low-latency" for all pitch of the L4S project.=20 >=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. As a first approximation knowing your speed just requires to run = a single (decent) speedtest, as the reported = TCP/IPv[4|6]/HTTP[s]-Goodput numbers can be feed directly into any = shaper (shapers typically desire gross rates, but since net < gross net = rates will just do fine if the aim is to keep latency under control). = Deutsche Telekom actually sends crude estimates of the achievable = goodput via PPPoE-ACK messages that AVM's FritzBox routers (quite = popular in Germany for those unhappy with the ISP supplied gear) = evaluate to configure up- and downstream shaping. Which due to lack of = proper documentation of the PPPoE-ACK message is a bit of a hit and miss = job. > 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. Sure, that is not a solution for congestion outside of the = access link, but that is an impossible problem to solve. But getting the = access link debloated often is an important first step even if it does = not fix the whole internet ;) > When I used my DOCSIS connection it routinely forwarded packets at = lower rates than what I bought (and had configured the ingress shaper = for). Gotta love oversubscribed segments ;) Gargoyle firmware has an = adaptive method that tries to tackl;e that poroblem, and eventouter, = IIUC, actually runs multiple bandwidth measures per day to track the = actually achievable bandwidth. But these are just work-arounds. Now if = your cable ISP acctually had used a competent QoS system you might not = have had to suffer bad latency with bad bandwidth. But I believe = cablelabs has identified that as a problem and is actively working on it = (and sooner or later their flow-queueing in disguise will do the right = thing ;) ). Flow-queueing in disguise, I hear nobody ask, well sure they = mandate a DualPI2 solution but also mandate in Annex P Queue Protection = Algorithm (Normative) of CM-SP-MULPIv3.1-I17-190121 something that must = come close to flow queuueing in cost, to cite from the source "The = algorithm maintains per-Microflow state that holds a =E2=80=9Cqueuing = score=E2=80=9D representing how much each Microflow was responsible for = recent queuing." I asked about the cost but have not heard an answer = yet. >=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? >=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. Yes, I know, and there are good reasons for doing it that way. > Generally there is no ingress shaping of any kind on the HGW, That is part of my question.... > it doesn't even know what speed the subscription is. See above how Deutsche Telekom deals with that issue, at least = in the German market. Thanks for your insights, much appreciated Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > --=20 > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se