From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 744BF3CB35 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 09:04:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 09CBEB1; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:04:57 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1554210297; bh=UTtoF2o0Z/qc5p7n33SxOOvrksYye88zO/sBWcSbIxc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=D9XHXNVRTwzafDTHbDZJSwcVB41mV7CEym9O7rBakbevdVhwpPOqrC6VUY49ekbOy cjSfdxtDJQLDaYYSv7rT87BM6H32n10Ads9e/rzZ2VPacMbCVdVlmopFHDjtwbvJFS h3Vps9uUglB3JUEOyWEaLx+VwyiSQnvSpVLQPMEQ= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0809AB0; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:04:57 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:04:57 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Sebastian Moeller cc: bloat , Jonathan Foulkes In-Reply-To: <47CA8CDA-3060-40C2-AC0A-04899F08C9DE@gmx.de> Message-ID: References: <47CA8CDA-3060-40C2-AC0A-04899F08C9DE@gmx.de> 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 13:04:58 -0000 On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > See above how Deutsche Telekom deals with that issue, at least in > the German market. I've read rumours about some ISPs implementing interaction with the VDSL DSLAM where there is an estimation of the current link-speed for each individual customer and then it tries to set the BNG egress shaper appropriately. I am very happy about my FTTH solution I have now since from what I can see the L2 network is almost never a limiting factor (much better than my DOCSIS connection) so my bidirectional SQM with CAKE seems to work very well. Still, the HGW can never solve these problems properly, the egress shaping in the BNG needs to do a proper job. From what I have been told, there has been improvements here in the past few years. What I am more worried about is the egress shaping from the HGW. I talked to several vendors at BBF and they talked about ingress policing being commonly used on the BNG. This means no ingress shaping at all (just packet drops if they exceed the configured rate). I don't know about buffering on the HGW though and how the policed rate is set compared to the L2 rate the HGW can send via. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se