From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 793E221F2B0 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 06:05:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 67CCFA3; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:05:38 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1424873138; bh=CJyY+HGn/wHHDDhpZwod1OUfuHUzpgJGFrtcuJrRMuY=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=p0VnnJlXSM0QJVcZbHZPLaCGit7LjV03/E0u6FpxktdH4jsTwf5H0h/VKxj5eDiTm ULMAZO14OHcUELpNY+WhGGIKs7rdwkJbLLd9B8VoP9gHb1IionPxbwS9GPhyayuVaX 3a21Sw0ntsMLeZbOiAaGVx65rW+tw5HvmWDDQo8c= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCC3A2; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:05:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:05:38 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= In-Reply-To: <871tleqff6.fsf@toke.dk> Message-ID: References: <201502250806.t1P86o5N011632@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4A80D1F9-F4A1-4D14-AC75-958C5A2E8168@gmx.de> <3F47B274-B0E4-44F2-A434-E3C9F7D5D041@ifi.uio.no> <87twyaffv3.fsf@toke.dk> <1D438EDC-358D-4DD5-9B8D-89182256F66C@gmx.de> <871tleqff6.fsf@toke.dk> 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="-137064504-1418759646-1424873138=:4007" Cc: "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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:06:10 -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. ---137064504-1418759646-1424873138=:4007 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > So you mean comparing the scenario where the AQM runs on both sides of > the bottleneck to one where it runs as an ingress shaper on one side > only? Yes. How much lower speed/rate would the CPE ingress (internet->CPE) AQM have to run at to have a reasonable low probability of traffic being delayed by that shaper (or dropped by the policer). I realise this would be different depending on speed of the access, but some data points would be interesting. For instance, some ISPs I've heard will have a policer and 2 seconds worth of burst, before they drop packets. Some others might have lower burst values. Some will have a pretty decent FIFO shaper. There are some different scenarios, how much lower speed do I need to run my AQM at in order to try to avoid this policer or shaper to affect my traffic? Gut feeling would be 10-20% should be enough, but I don't know. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se ---137064504-1418759646-1424873138=:4007--