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 7F95A3CB35 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 09:35:02 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1554212099; bh=IPeBlWaU60uvL/SWRwSVh6tSAEa3oY/YfXhJa1rR15M=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Cd8gd4ePYTDg955//Hqc0vZWfWASM+w/0KpVfc+jgWeeG/OaG+FV+3j/3rIECuAOn Zd53T1kOANtIjBLh7nRFcfUvtk8s7MPsYdx7yEy0mW6dKYDAulJUl73gR09bM8mg+F xD5CTJLJv0GFd/McLwYlJmmNjeV1rtltB3hMmaaw= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [172.16.12.10] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MD9NE-1hACaN1IGS-00GdDg; Tue, 02 Apr 2019 15:34:59 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:34:58 +0200 Cc: bloat , Jonathan Foulkes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5C360DB4-777C-466E-9FC1-0CA8F719F797@gmx.de> References: To: Ryan Mounce X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:Qv1e85G81eEiFGSgk6rEwoTIg9kZFWQcwNejy+Q+PFzooEbY1Nr H21SpxoSda8Qoie58yO2y/z3pRhoXA8y39q5K/pSjenTxok+lR4Qh7PkWdTNA5W3iCeaznQ 0pO+6yn7qZwJpupidVIFxyn2bl7KurCioGSXhtPPnHECBX072oTH8aMtzpaXff29XRq6Asd xodRVj5DR5ozhOIVDWswQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:IR6aww6WQ0A=:FkueKnw0ZmTld/u7Ufgumq EqU6ln8GhiZifDgwa60e/g5waFItb96GSm9rakrclH+LFGBEpSPiRDwBkmHjQ2YPOeYWSU6Tm O8tGkmlw+vFmuF4GvVXc7KmbDPy/3ESXKjk9exIjOghqVIZtJA9Y56rI9vVqt57ACGQkbBz/f CDcvztI12jo+o3HZ7CenNj2y8HdPylF9Hl3IM33cuwqCTtJA+2JI1bAkezRz6/G//t5zbmpQM 5fh3oAZTUxbkTLgtO5+anhBPuzQMmJ02pNFZ+9/fFZGgk6dYOtqTUzKCXY4Ieo4J3wdRLhX9a eJwqhWHTZn/K+bWfDG4lu8DWdWK+M/07FI9ayi5fvF9jKMdTcvFn62uw4k3+cgOCgwtCaLvUa KkrmmQGfTMFOYvJe0BjWUaSIDZBxG4HfHs2sSMJde3fY+WAwIV+Nulopzxwk/5NdNODUINYO/ EyxBU3DegQWcgh8D6gZ3CIbZtEqWjFKHkgxh4VEvbpQuwqyKiminb1Q8EnQzVpJVus4e6ga4G YSbJbxTaFTNGvd125E91LLsCk0PyreRQ9nl4fTJlj/k00WEHU2x08xO0QlwoHpXYdzVAAWGHd fjLsJ6UfalHnl3bTaKaRdG2ckitRmrNJP7EUZ8Ez6KEiyjPtVgMeA6rQ48lMpfzfDfTOXeZXT Jg9VFcntZFNgYQ4sSIhBDGOqV9y7JcxYMN06noDG+tc86KT0ZFdbAcQhmluoSBeBfSzVzlZI0 F4s2mS7Avzor+4OG1WORgie0jGTXELu4sl2SVhxoHRrpESZz4vYvt26kd5a42Hn7Je6PUGGce 5/+xOmhbLSbUfY19AX9EhAMBSNjLduhTYB7Y7tnd/9Q3FwwngTPMZ7ECMioTNjnt6UCLE13j8 OeEjijoQAQ9Q6RHnE11RvtPTiwwugIVOl7+2YUF5TUbkL8XG/USk3J7mgiQbrft3gY2c7NwpC SDhNmDLNJ9w== 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 13:35:02 -0000 > On Apr 2, 2019, at 15:15, Ryan Mounce wrote: >=20 > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 22:08, 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 > L4S people are concerned by RFC 3168 / "classic" ECN bottlenecks > *without* fq. I know, but I believe that they misunderstand the issues = resulting from post-bottleneck shaping, like ingress shaping on the = remote side of the true bottleneck. The idea seems that sending at too = high a rate is unproblematic if the AQM can simply queue up these = packets and delay them accordingly. But in the ingress shaper case these = packets already traversed the bottleneck and aone has payed the = bandwidth price to hoist them to the home, delaying or even dropping on = the AQM side will not magically get the time back the packets took = traversing the link. Why do I care, because that ingress shaping setup is what I use = at home, and I have zero confidence that ISPs will come up with a = solution to my latency desires that I am going to be happy with... And = what I see from the L4S mixes light with a lot of shadows. > I don't think there would be any such ingress shapers > configured on home gateways. Certainly not by anyone on this list... > anyone running non-fq codel or flowblind cake for ingress shaping? As stated above, I believe fq to not be a reliable safety valve = for the ingress shaping case. Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > -Ryan