From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-x231.google.com (mail-vc0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::231]) (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 8004421F2CF for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id hy4so10917371vcb.22 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:33:39 -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; bh=pZCbZCkxtqp2nzag8HpDkThIDqmz+3w9316qzNrhJ98=; b=StGjS4w08bTq/H/L+9jnFQqEQAREz6TgyZrphGKMCouO4DzqX3clHd59m5J48jOaiA o95plZuc5Ql2vvgyVUOG2d7g80yEQJRYtK8QUFtnZwJQdBuuxyuBttqaGm0JFjs3hofQ odDzyGrCjsERJ99mX3uKiMnEE5Pig9Ahb66lnkkLoa2PtI25c7YN0jSbEULac9rnsFbd AHTx+5OXWacqq0Y+g5Rg8NEXz7DplIgt3R6k3EoLiX5TF6SOFXzlHaK+Xc733RVQd03E wOuXtIdjf7lWo0h6YpzTgs9nkImxTITYIycxWp520xWZSs8+puHe8S/Y80hOPVIb7oqd 1MlQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.36.80 with SMTP id o16mr48708vdj.58.1408642419072; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.53.8.39 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.53.8.39 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:33:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20140804124453.GA19478@ens-lyon.fr> <96292B6B-F49D-4A8A-BD23-DD75399D8DA9@ifi.uio.no> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:33:38 +0300 Message-ID: From: Jonathan Morton To: Dave Taht Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307c9f1001260b0501271f9e Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] Remy: Computer-Generated Congestion Control 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: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:33:40 -0000 --20cf307c9f1001260b0501271f9e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I don't suppose anyone has set up a lab containing several hundred wireless clients and a number of APs? A stepping stone towards that would be a railway carriage simulator, with one AP, a simulated 3G uplink, and a couple of dozen clients. I wonder how well simply putting fq on each of the clients and fq_codel on the APs would work. My general impression is that fq is the right default choice for end hosts (which are generally not at the bottleneck) and fq_codel is the right default choice for bottleneck routers. A typical consumer router/AP might see the bottleneck for both directions, though not necessarily at the same time. - Jonathan Morton --20cf307c9f1001260b0501271f9e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I don't suppose anyone has set up a lab containing sever= al hundred wireless clients and a number of APs? A stepping stone towards t= hat would be a railway carriage simulator, with one AP, a simulated 3G upli= nk, and a couple of dozen clients.

I wonder how well simply putting fq on each of the clients a= nd fq_codel on the APs would work. My general impression is that fq is the = right default choice for end hosts (which are generally not at the bottlene= ck) and fq_codel is the right default choice for bottleneck routers. A typi= cal consumer router/AP might see the bottleneck for both directions, though= not necessarily at the same time.

- Jonathan Morton

--20cf307c9f1001260b0501271f9e--