From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from p-mail2.rd.orange.com (p-mail2.rd.orange.com [195.101.245.16]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F91821F0E7 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 06:16:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2FD6BE30070; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:16:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.194.32.11]) by p-mail2.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BEAE3006B; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:16:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from [172.31.0.14] (10.193.116.12) by FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (10.194.32.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:16:39 +0100 Message-ID: <54EDD951.50904@orange.com> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:16:49 +0100 From: MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mikael Abrahamsson , Sebastian Moeller References: <201502250806.t1P86o5N011632@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4A80D1F9-F4A1-4D14-AC75-958C5A2E8168@gmx.de> <3F47B274-B0E4-44F2-A434-E3C9F7D5D041@ifi.uio.no> <87twyaffv3.fsf@toke.dk> <1D438EDC-358D-4DD5-9B8D-89182256F66C@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Bloat] RED against bufferbloat X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:17:12 -0000 On 02/25/2015 02:36 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> > > As I said before, doing FQ_CODEL in the AR is an expensive proposition > for medium and high speed access. So if this could successfully be > pushed to the CPE it would mean it would be more widely deployed. I do not agree. Well, it depends on what you mean with expensive. Doing FQ in silicon is easy. It must be very easy as I did myself in a MIPS Ikanos Vx185 chipset and I am not an hardware expert. This was for a CPE with a 5X1Gbps ports. If you go a little deeper in the network and you pick an OLT you won't find much intelligence. A little deeper and in a local aggregation router (all vendors) you'll find what you would need to implement FQ. A card here is already managing several ports at 10Gbps and the challenge is more or less the same as in the CPE down to the customer (with downsized rates/fanouts and resources: cpu and memory). The hardware resources (CPU and memory) available in current equipment are sized to do shaping/policy and some AQMs. No guarantees it works as you would expect but technically FQ is not expensive if properly implemented. If you mean that it is expensive in terms of time (and probably money) to educate equipment vendors that we need much more than what you have now, than yes I do agree. At the same time I acknowledge, as Bob wrote somewhere in this thread, that doing nothing is worse than doing something, even if suboptimal. Some "positive" view: access with Gbps (up to 1Gbps) with a range of RTT (1ms to 100ms) will need smarter mechanisms in the equipment as inefficiencies will be crystal clear and business consequences will be substantially different. Luca