From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com (mail-ob0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) (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 3143F21F24E; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 19:57:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id gq1so28846934obb.2; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 19:57:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zD7xRnvOs947C+rzc57VQTQ5DAFf/LAb+lrlrW7POxM=; b=OUJaetAQAnWZIa+cmfQ64Sla46rw2xbr5/QkDQsjiY48J73nPfiHYcL1p5ExMV/AyO 1OVwENhQMzUH9sGR2ppT0Lcbzab+d3L5npyMrrena/zt9L0UaxiwxC7JCSq//vdnneqp Lm2wU1YSZCfV2Qkz0r7mZnLC1IyX7mYHqWcYeAhxmpYFaxm0zL/0955gtZyDw4vdWV4k M3NaorCD6zW/z5B2rB93TDlVWRGodmd2PjjcKXXKzLGSdNuETEZcykvSMzc8V/nFQo+j HswQ6JlD7EtGeZFSr+92ZJ9Ht2aQiLRhAbzMyXC5yzmc6E8Ge+8Je/5dXdJsjMwlNHfB cA3Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.111.131 with SMTP id v3mr16792561oik.133.1425268657046; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 19:57:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.51.66 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 19:57:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 19:57:37 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "aqm@ietf.org" , bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" 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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 03:58:06 -0000 On this thread over here, an otherwise pretty clueful user chose openwrt's qos-scripts over the sqm-scripts, because sqm-scripts had *higher ping loss*. http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=3D61634.msg251125#msg251125 (I note that both fq_codel enabled QoS systems outperformed streamboost by a lot, which I am happy about) wow. It never registered to me that users might make a value judgement based on the amount of ping loss, and in looking back in time, I can think of multiple people that have said things based on their perception that losing pings was bad, and that sqm-scripts was "worse than something else because of it." sqm-scripts explicitly *deprioritizes* ping. In particular, this reduces the impact of ping floods from ipv6 to your entire /64, or to your whole ipv4, fairly well. And I had made the point that prioritizing ping was a bad idea here (including some dripping sarcasm later in the piece). http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Wondershaper_Must_Die but wow, it never occurred to me - in all these years - that ping was the next core metric on simple tests. I can be really dumb. I use netperf-wrapper and tend to ignore most of the ping data, but certainly on some benchmarks we have published ping doesn't look as good as the other stuff, *because it is deprioritized below all the other traffic*. Not strictly rate limited - as some systems do by default, including openwrt, which is impossible to get right - just deprioritized.... How can we fix this user perception, short of re-prioritizing ping in sqm-scripts? --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb