From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (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 A740C3B29E for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 11:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id l25so3009896qki.7 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 08:44:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=u7BCzQsHawkRRJh4qp/f01VWfaSKaNRgwmw+4sdVGH0=; b=hqYDtKYhGNWEBAi2mq5wZzCXN3GOrqv1DcVc2rPP7dL0Jzf5SS+ib6teFw3PaTqRYh Dx03iPEzGlyPmYe6OSyuQQMJ13k4TLkyh0p0ljH5n/aAB9GJBfZRjo8bytk/EdT0eZLa iqQbHNMwGazKe282I/odUrVVc+GU7/h5FbwNdGaaNO2iJOVdoKpuDJV2O26M80KDGIOo Ti+A/QjKfKmDAJ+xPkyNUe+w7VByrIDd9Qdq+xhsHj1vGxXYjzbPZjwtv7xY+4I5pElD OiktE1BNEoZw7RiNiolTOBoxkhHf3dXzrpDRsJzr3Eb8YmriLW6Hga1WzVZSQ3ZAE2UN Vb0Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=u7BCzQsHawkRRJh4qp/f01VWfaSKaNRgwmw+4sdVGH0=; b=tdOGFy8YaAQL30F+rJP68q1FHHz7CbHJJHAL3IOaynPY4sRpPFb7gHKUcmvTS1Di3O c7DxDhXsquByjL5kYSaKED6O4YMU/6wv/a1sL9q+dJY8la3y5fl6Fc+ksWampYzZOTly 35PfSB8zEiDxa21/pGfNbOWHI00SFDmkkR3N0LPgkzE5GXRC1QzdodYIZy4OtqajVN17 KNRtViiNJ8w9j5+K+bTXMJ2AjIKsSoASCuGLbKce945tFMea0lJ0RzWhIeBgHtoA9NAY bdEwwGX4dyar9MT+T2xG6oo/jmpWuRU00tUEtvFNgw4A+DImAlqHQGubgKLL4oPyYYwv XDtg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ06oMp16BJ58vavGiYl87XGiaEaEmudFjdaKZtMJJxqtEoPXeY+ k1QlgeU9ir56jaOb22MV4u1FziPKvaer0zYnkd8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuKzXb2hKmsjdH9GYJbc4HDM/bNVYjoiU13A8gYoZgf0ptgEyxfmHnHSY5rXCUOLNChqYZ8KK7BcapotzoJ0ok= X-Received: by 2002:a37:8d86:: with SMTP id p128mr3665407qkd.250.1585151081876; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 08:44:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <875zesret5.fsf@toke.dk> <87r1xgpuhm.fsf@toke.dk> In-Reply-To: <87r1xgpuhm.fsf@toke.dk> From: Aaron Wood Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 08:44:30 -0700 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Cc: Sebastian Moeller , bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002691b205a1afbf47" Subject: Re: [Bloat] Still seeing bloat with a DOCSIS 3.1 modem 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: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:44:42 -0000 --0000000000002691b205a1afbf47 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > >>> But it's DOCSIS 3.1, so why isn't PIE working? Theory: It's in > DOCSIS 3.0 > >>> upstream mode based on the status LEDs. Hopefully it will go away if > I can > >>> convince it to run in DOCSIS 3.1 mode. > >> > >> I think that while PIE is "mandatory to implement" in DOCSIS 3.1, the > >> ISP still has to turn it on? So maybe yelling at them will work? (ha!) > I've chatted with someone about it, and they seemed to think it's suspicious, but I'm not going to push it further until I have modem showing that it's in DOCSIS 3.1 for upstream. I do need to see if I can sort out what the SB8200's status messages are: CM-STATUS message sent. Event Type Code: 24; Chan ID: 48; DSID: N/A; MAC Addr: N/A; OFDM/OFDMA Profile ID: 2 3.;CM-MAC=xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx;CMTS-MAC=xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.1; > >>> At the moment, however, my WRT1900AC isn't up to the task of dealing > with > >>> these sorts of downstream rates. > >>> > >>> So I'm looking at the apu2, which from this post: > >>> > https://forum.openwrt.org/t/comparative-throughput-testing-including-nat-sqm-wireguard-and-openvpn/44724 > >>> > >>> Will certainly get most of the way there. > >> > >> My Turris Omnia is doing fine on my 1Gbps connection (although that > >> hardly suffers from bloat, so I'm not doing any shaping; did try it > >> though, and it has no problem with running CAKE at 1Gbps). > > > > Well, doing local network flent RRUL stress tests indicated that > > my omnia (at that time with TOS4/Openwrt18) only allowed up to > > 500/500 Mbps shaping with bi directionally saturating traffic > > with full MTU-sized packets. So I undirectional CAKE at 1Gbps > > can work, but under full load, I did not manage that, what did I > > wrong? > > Hmm, not sure I've actually done full bidirectional shaping. And trying > it now, it does seem to be struggling... That's definitely an option for me, as I don't have to worry about a 2Gbps total traffic, only about 1.03Gbps (since cable is so asymmetric). But I'm also not sure I want to go with another ARM box. The small x64 boxes are looking like a much better long-term option. --0000000000002691b205a1afbf47 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>> But it's DOCSIS 3.1, so why isn't = PIE working?=C2=A0 Theory:=C2=A0 It's in DOCSIS 3.0
>>> upstream mode based on the status LEDs.=C2=A0 Hopefully it wil= l go away if I can
>>> convince it to run in DOCSIS 3.1 mode.
>>
>> I think that while PIE is "mandatory to implement" in DO= CSIS 3.1, the
>> ISP still has to turn it on? So maybe yelling at them will work? (= ha!)

I've chatted with someone abou= t it, and they seemed to think it's suspicious, but I'm not going t= o push it further until I have modem showing that it's in DOCSIS 3.1 fo= r upstream.

I do need to see if I can sort out wha= t the SB8200's status messages are:

CM-STATUS = message sent. Event Type Code: 24; Chan ID: 48; DSID: N/A; MAC Addr: N/A; O= FDM/OFDMA Profile ID: 2 3.;CM-MAC=3Dxx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx;CMTS-MAC=3Dxx:xx:xx:x= x:xx:xx;CM-QOS=3D1.1;CM-VER=3D3.1;
=C2=A0
>>> At the moment, however, my WRT1900AC isn't up to the task = of dealing with
>>> these sorts of downstream rates.
>>>
>>> So I'm looking at the apu2, which from this post:
>>> https://forum.openwrt.org/t/comparative-throughput-testing= -including-nat-sqm-wireguard-and-openvpn/44724
>>>
>>> Will certainly get most of the way there.
>>
>> My Turris Omnia is doing fine on my 1Gbps connection (although tha= t
>> hardly suffers from bloat, so I'm not doing any shaping; did t= ry it
>> though, and it has no problem with running CAKE at 1Gbps).
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Well, doing local network flent RRUL stress = tests indicated that
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0my omnia (at that time with TOS4/Openwrt18) = only allowed up to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0500/500 Mbps shaping with bi directionally s= aturating traffic
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0with full MTU-sized packets. So I undirectio= nal CAKE at 1Gbps
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0can work, but under full load, I did not man= age that, what did I
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0wrong?

Hmm, not sure I've actually done full bidirectional shaping. And trying=
it now, it does seem to be struggling...

Th= at's definitely an option for me, as I don't have to worry about a = 2Gbps total traffic, only about 1.03Gbps (since cable is so asymmetric).

But I'm also not sure I want to go with another = ARM box.=C2=A0 The small x64 boxes are looking like a much better long-term= option.
--0000000000002691b205a1afbf47--