Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] Of interest: Comcast AQM Paper

[Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>]

Hi Mikael,



> On Aug 4, 2021, at 15:06, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> 
>> I guess the point is AQM is not really that expensive, even FQ AQM, traffic shaping however is expensive. But for wifi shaping is not required so AQM became feasible.
> 
> My point is that CPU based forwarding has very bad performance on some platforms, regardless if you're doing shaping, AQM or none of them (FIFO).
> 
> If it's not hw accelerated, it sucks.
> 
> When I did tests on MT7621 it did ~100 meg/s without flow-offload, and full gig with it.

	Reminds me of the joke of the gent sitting in a pub boasting the size of his property being so immense it takes a full week to ride around the perimeter...
To which another guest responds wryly, he used to have a horse that slow in the past as well....
	Point being a number of commercially sold CPE are not fit for the job of doing anything at Gbps link rates... sure accelerators can be nice, but they all come at the expense of reduced generality... Give that a raspberry Pi 4B has no trouble doing traffic shaping a 1Gbps (plus firewalling, NAT, PPPoE, ... and all of this in "software" with full generality) there is little excuse of still selling deploying CPE that were a decent fit for DSL link rates... But I live in a rich country where ISP take 2-5 EUR rent per month for CPE, so money is not a reasonable excuse for an ISP over here to cut corners.... 

Regards
	Sebastian



> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se