From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBDD521F115
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 05:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501)
	id 68B07A4; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:36:38 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail;
	t=1424871398; bh=QiXfCWdA6YubSxIXVzHzSIJydhHBtIwPN7fCW+0fDu0=;
	h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=CVZXNcR1g0vKPp13k6jv3RFvf0tTHaCDcyGITH5GQejXsxkqZtbloKu5pD6fJ2yFZ
	zIorC8w6Rl/6jOcgrqvjKm3kPUEBtgWEXJKysnS+Z3TpuTJyKAI77sYfe7Rdm1oyq1
	SAznyN7zkMQtirL57MBB9o2XNP4ZOBrFUmLuvZ2M=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C21A3;
	Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:36:38 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:36:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <1D438EDC-358D-4DD5-9B8D-89182256F66C@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502251433230.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CADnS-2hPmb3zt6GvdbZjDuM10VgN5yvMrxigUL5Z_-nA-dOyjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1502250737150.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se>
	<201502250806.t1P86o5N011632@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
	<mck1t7$ies$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<FC82EEB0-5E7E-473F-B9B3-2BFEC06C7689@ifi.uio.no>
	<4A80D1F9-F4A1-4D14-AC75-958C5A2E8168@gmx.de>
	<3F47B274-B0E4-44F2-A434-E3C9F7D5D041@ifi.uio.no>
	<87twyaffv3.fsf@toke.dk>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1502251138490.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se>
	<1D438EDC-358D-4DD5-9B8D-89182256F66C@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED;
	BOUNDARY="-137064504-1721826416-1424871398=:4007"
Cc: "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] RED against bufferbloat
X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat <bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat>
List-Post: <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:37:10 -0000

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

---137064504-1721826416-1424871398=:4007
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote:

> 	The only argument for ingress shaping on the CPE is that this 
> allows the end user to define her own QOS criteria independent of the 
> ISPs wishes. Best of both worlds would be user configurable QOS-shaping 
> on the slam/bras/whatever…

As I said before, doing FQ_CODEL in the AR is an expensive proposition for 
medium and high speed access. So if this could successfully be pushed to 
the CPE it would mean it would be more widely deployed.

I am very much aware that this is being done (I have done it myself), but 
my question was if someone had actually done this in a lab and found out 
how well it works in RRUL tests etc.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
---137064504-1721826416-1424871398=:4007--