Re: [Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] preliminary codel and fq_codel support for cerowrt

Re: [Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] preliminary codel and fq_codel support for cerowrt

[dave taht]

On 05/16/2012 09:34 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> so I upgraded my router to the most recent version, and hey I am really impressed, thanks a lot for all the work.
> (I never really stress the local network, and the internet is 5/30 so I consider to be on the safe side of #379 and decided to ignore your recommendation about the suitability for main routers).
> 	I tried the simple_qos.sh script and for my testing it is quite nice indeed. The whole network stays quite responsive even during abuse. The whole expeience was quite pleasant (using ssh over a ssl based VPN to remote control an X11 session while stressing in and out direction); counter to my subjective experience though netalyzr was detecting 3000 odd milliseconds of buffering upstream (downstream was fine). Once I find more time I will have a go at reproducing that. (Now I have to figure out whether I need to restart simple_qos.sh anytime I down or up an interface; any pointer?) BTW, how do you envision this to be started under the AQM tab; shall this start simple_qos or rather debloat?

No, I had something more wonderful in mind.

Felix Fietkau has added fq_codel to the openwrt 3.3 kernel and to the 
existing qos-scripts as of openwrt revision 31761.

Builds for 37 architectures and ~150 platforms are popping out as I write.

See

http://buildbot.openwrt.org:8010/one_line_per_build

For details.

I will be obsoleting the CeroWrt aqm and aqm-scripts and simple_qos as 
soon as the new qos-scripts handles ipv6 properly, and maybe get a 
chance to add a trick or two to more to it.

Erics latest patch to fq_codel has not yet landed in openwrt.


> Small observation, port 81 on the router seems open to the internet, easily fixed, but maybe something you might want know :)
Patches gladly accepted. Frankly I'd hoped to have CeroWall done by now, 
but, well, the ball's on the 20 yard line, and I need to bench myself 
for a while.

Hopefully someone else can take it in for the score.
>
> Anyway, thanks again
> 	Sebastian
>
>
> On May 14, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
>> A test release of CeroWrt is now available that has support for Kathie
>> Nichols' and Van Jacobson's new AQM, Codel , and Eric Dumazet's new
>> fair queuing implementation on top of that, fq_codel.
>>
>> fq_codel is enabled on all interfaces by default. It is vastly simpler
>> than what we were using before (sfqred) and draws upon and improves on
>> the same body of ideas (head drop, fq, timestamping) but is now tied
>> to Kathie and Van's blinding insights as to a good drop strategy, and
>> Eric's successor-to-sfqred ideas as towards head of queue behavior,
>> modern amounts of flows, and cache line optimizations.
>>
>> There is a simple_qos.sh script that can be set to your uplink and
>> downlink speeds, but no uci interface for it as yet, nor gui. (help on
>> finishing aqm-scripts and the luci interface gladly accepted)
>>
>> To see all the chocolately goodness of what fq_codel can do to wired
>> and wireless latency, it would be good for more to play with it.
>>
>> Benchmarks have been very good thus far, and more benchmarks and
>> analysis are highly desired.
>>
>> Caveat:
>>
>> This release suffers from an unrelated bug ( #379 ) and should NOT be
>> installed as your main router. I would love to beat this bug because
>> it's the only prio 1 remaining but thus far, no luck. Under lighter
>> loads CeroWrt appears to work just fine, but that's for me. YMMV.
>>
>> Get it here: http://huchra.bufferbloat.net/~cero1/3.3/3.3.6-2/
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dave Täht
>> SKYPE: davetaht
>> US Tel: 1-239-829-5608
>> http://www.bufferbloat.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

Re: [Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] preliminary codel and fq_codel support for cerowrt

[Dave Taht]

The problem with most home router firewalls today is that they have a strict
"us" vs "them" concept in them, and are closely tied to what can be
NATed, or not, which limits our internet to tcp and udp.

Recently the concept of 'guest' has been added to many devices,
which doesn't work particularly well.

A problem with "us vs them" and extending this sort of thinking
to ipv6, is that interesting new protocols such as
sctp, hip, rdp, dccp, rsvp esp, gre, ah, skip, ospf, vrrp, isis, manet, shim6,
wesp, and rohc...

are all blocked by default in ipv6, too.

It doesn't need to be this way.

I have hated living in a world of purely tcp on port 80 and 443.

Seeing udp begin to fail in multiple respects - such as dns,dhcp, voice, etc
really bothers me.

So cerowall attempted (I've never finished it) to use pattern matching
in iptables, and device renaming, to make it possible to have a nearly
default free zone (DFZ) for guests, and use a bare minimum of rules,
to pass through...

and the core idea was also be able to pass ALL protocols everywhere,
under ipv6.

The current openwrt firewall solution scales O(n) where n = the number
of interfaces
the cerowall idea scales O(n) where n = the number of different zones.

Firewalling is responsible for a minimum of 11% of the current runtime,
with the current firewall rules, with 6 interfaces in play.

CeroWall did a lot better, while opening up new vistas to play in.

-- 
Dave Täht
SKYPE: davetaht
US Tel: 1-239-829-5608
http://www.bufferbloat.net