From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (mail.lang.hm [64.81.33.126]) (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 2EB1321F2C3 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:33:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id t3IKX6Pr005860; Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:33:06 -0700 Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:33:05 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Ketan Kulkarni In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/Mixed; BOUNDARY="===============3308358811030495032==" Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] Bufferbloat in switches and routers 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: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 20:33:36 -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. --===============3308358811030495032== Content-Type: TEXT/Plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 18 Apr 2015, Ketan Kulkarni wrote: > Hi, > We have been talking about the bloated buffers mostly on the home routers. > The Cisco PIE too has been standardized by docsis meant to be for cable > modems > > I think we would have similar concerns for switches and routers. (E.g. > cat3k switches or Cisco 5760 controllers just to name) remember that bufferbloat shows up where there is a difference in bandwidth from one side of the router to the other (i.e. a bottleneck) This is almost always going to happen at the edge of your LAN where you go from your Gig-E (or in a datacenter, possibly 10Gig-E to your WAN link. It can happen at places inside your datacenter, but isn't as likely > I would like to know your views about what you think about it . > Are the theories so far and the AQMs (codel and pie) stand true for such > devices too? If they are bottlenecks, yes. If they are not bottlenecks it won't hurt (no queues will build up > What would it take to measure the bloat levels of these devices? Do we > still need to use the netperf wrapper to get the characteristics of such > devices? the same approach works. you may need beefier systems to generate sufficient load. David Lang --===============3308358811030495032== Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: Content-Description: Content-Disposition: INLINE _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat --===============3308358811030495032==--