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 B4CC93CB3C for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 05:47:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 56733AF; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:47:16 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1555062436; bh=wW5xmWg6O9o7zzSkB4LpolF+RDv7SXMothwYpcqlM2o=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=CVmbt9XR2OJA1bvgkjR2V64qDMtSKUsA1sMQj4GiEHsUOJlYCnlElXnRTBoYQ2vsk hDEHWSJOYLPRY5mvFdzdy6mlTA28kxL523wF9rOEIWvxt08dPFYRpzs6C7XOyGSqlA TVRQnkrJVsquHrYU6AIipOFCRlsKFANz4I+JIo2s= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547AD9F; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:47:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:47:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Jonathan Morton cc: "Holland, Jake" , "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" In-Reply-To: <6889A853-52F2-4554-9450-F59F9CB6B91A@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <8301D679-FB99-4CB8-8A58-E83B3BA0007D@gmail.com> <6889A853-52F2-4554-9450-F59F9CB6B91A@gmail.com> 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] datapoint from one vendor regarding bloat 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: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 09:47:17 -0000 On Thu, 11 Apr 2019, Jonathan Morton wrote: > So what this boils down to is a two-stage TBF policer. From idle, such > a system will let a burst of traffic through unfiltered, then start > dropping once the bucket is empty; the bucket is refilled at some > configured rate. The two-stage system allows implementation of > "PowerBoost" style policies. I'm not so sure: "Buffering (Enqueuing) Once a packet is assigned to a certain forwarding class, it will try to get a buffer in order to be enqueued. Whether the packet can get a buffer is determined by the instantaneous buffer utilization and several attributes of the queue (such as Maximum Burst Size (MBS), Committed Burst Size (CBS) and high-prio-only) that will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. If a packet cannot get a buffer for whatever reason, the packet will get dropped immediately. " The person I talked to yesterday insisted that they actually did 10ms of *buffering* *bidirectionally*, because we specifically discussed policing and buffering and the difference. I have access to one of their devices in our lab, I'm going to do testing of this in the next few weeks so I'll know for sure by then. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se