From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B70F521F351 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 10:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbqz1 with SMTP id qz1so41630389obb.3 for ; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 10:48:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3B+HI7+jP8V8kkR7UqGgYl7t1GD87+7J9FjVYBsorLU=; b=VZBFfMN3lSuln1o+MPQ7XnE+lBNYAxbQGj6Xg2rNMlVNaNVopO7cT++36Qh03EfVQz Y07HA41LTSXUKbm1u7oWebkuUmUwFPg7zc47RswGc7KELCRCKQxlKLmUbfleXRpGSTQJ sgWeLMBsog0rgDoAGe7t2/UQXcZv61EG0r/b57SlbGQzP7F37KQynzeOWQVwMvx70vAx LwzVqIfwqBP5D6smPQJbUaHy71lf71aq6T+AFlea6NDKwDUg5gsgFVMdRbeGQ6QNclsb Ys1W4MbWXLSp6hml41gbUeDC1mbWx9XIbmhNGsPuIx49gJsQbIn6jCqGLrNpN4EWhUAc yJ0A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.88.131 with SMTP id bg3mr4030831obb.29.1433526521578; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 10:48:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.105.129 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 10:48:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5571DC01.70301@k.gg> References: <7D4DDC3F-9233-4E07-B59B-AA1368CA9D4E@gmail.com> <5571B334.7050607@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> <5571DA4E.5060809@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> <5571DC01.70301@k.gg> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 10:48:41 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Adrian Kennard Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] Bloat goes away, but with ~25% speed loss? X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 17:49:11 -0000 On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Adrian Kennard wrote: > On 05/06/2015 18:23, Dave Taht wrote: >>>> A&A struck me as an extremely clueful ISP (I think they have had ipv6 >>>> /48s for forever?) >>>> and it has been my impression that folk like that were using things >>>> like HFSC + SFQ already >>>> in their "rate limiters", and had experimented also with fq_codel by n= ow. > > Oh, I meant to say, the policers used on broadband links have a very > very simple logic of small packets (<1000) are allowed more predicted > lag, and so VoIP "just works" as does DNS, interactive key presses, TCP > ACK packets and all sorts of time critical stuff. Yes, I have thought about many improvements to the linux based policer with "bobbie", including this one. Still, prior to running out of cpu with inbound shaping + fq_codel on the cpe side, we were doing so well that I basically figured that the same stuff was also very applicable to the isp's side, particularly as we approached higher rates. Matt Mathis is always whinging about bad policer implementations showing up in the google mlabs datasets... certainly linux's is insanely primitive even compared to the rfcs. So I am curious as to how well A&A's AS20712 (?) clients are doing on the new dslreports.com/speedtest, which shows the "bloat" grade and actual behavior over time? And I think dslreports is now publishing summary statistics somewhere?? shibbolet! --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast