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 70E843B29D for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:28:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id E83A4B3; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:28:37 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1591100917; bh=bIhiYWmblt7aGr7POJxXxSxmtIZ2RbEcoK7/aPGec4o=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=kpJD9C7MSaHxQi9oduPHs8ae721B9zRt00/lw/4m3zNrlTAGxItf/8QOV1mhedRKv sOHA4Nfdh7v9sVIqMRym1m7XzJq+kceyzE0aLptjP2+WHlDa6/oKmIQKxSkSfu5uoq bNY46dIrNurkXwYmyRtLaVCjNZFl58M4LD3bKsa8= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62DEB0; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:28:37 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:28:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Tianhe cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Does employing a AQM on the home router also solve bufferbloat between home router and upstream devices? 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 X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 12:28:39 -0000 On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Tianhe wrote: > What does it mean? What I do is that on my WAN, I do bidirectional shaping/AQM at 90% of the ISP configured rate, meaning buffering will generally be done in my device instead of the ISP device, and my device has proper AQM so I have no bufferbloat. This is not perfect but it works well enough to make a big difference for all normal use-cases. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se