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 TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FDA53CB35 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 08:10:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id CA258B2; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 14:10:07 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1554207007; bh=H0phv1cDs+snBoPa/cBS5EOTUYYmkANET2R4VLO6DiY=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=2n5p1lTCheDtzaxVhzAXYlL/adz/BTDjwS4Hlh2kxhwiel1vR8kax2U3YMzouHABP CtC1H73GL68FK36Fl8xGfDL+Mkqlo4GRyvgZ11isQ6XhbQRfZzJM3C5dojfuzVYpzA FVCmmn+ve6GD6ayqPK1HZn0SHYDUNpPtgwvaJ60c= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58D2B0; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 14:10:07 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 14:10:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Sebastian Moeller cc: bloat , Jonathan Foulkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Bloat] number of home routers with ingress AQM 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: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 12:10:09 -0000 On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > I just wondered if anybody has any reasonable estimate how many > end-users actually employ fair-queueing AQMs with active ECN-marking for > ingress traffic @home? I am trying to understand whether L4S approach to > simply declare these as insignificant in number is justifiable? If more than 0.01% of HGWs did this I'd be extremely surprised. > I know in openwrt with sqm that is the default, but I have no idea about To configure ingress shaping you actually have to know the speed and configure it. It's not the default. Also, it's useless if the transport network queues the packets at lower rate than at what you receive it. When I used my DOCSIS connection it routinely forwarded packets at lower rates than what I bought (and had configured the ingress shaper for). > the number of devices that actually use sqm in the field; @Jonathan: > does evenroute have numbers you are willing to share, like total numbers > or % of iqrouters with ecn-marking ingress routing active? ISP networks typically looks like this in the ISP->HGW direction: BNG->L2->L2->HGW This is the same regardless if it's DSL, DOCSIS, FTTH/PON or whatever. So shaping is done egress on BNG and it tries to send at lower rate than any of the L2 devices. Generally there is no ingress shaping of any kind on the HGW, it doesn't even know what speed the subscription is. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se