From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (unknown [66.167.227.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 213E03B2A4 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 22:58:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-laptop.LAN (dlang-laptop.LAN [10.2.0.162]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD5DB8DA5; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 19:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 19:58:58 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang-laptop To: Tianhe cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.1 (DEB 209 2017-03-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="===============1469818852477289902==" Subject: Re: [Bloat] Does employing a AQM on the home router also solve bufferbloat between home router and upstream devices? 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 Jun 2020 02:58:59 -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. --===============1469818852477289902== Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT a normal smart queue will solve the problem on any links it's sending to, so it will solve the problem on the upstream connection to your ISP. to address the downstream side, you either need a smart queue on the ISP side, or you need to play 'interesting' games with acks to throttle the senders so that they don't overwelm the downstream. cake and some other options do these downtream tricks, but it would be better to have a smart queue on the ISP side. smart queueing only matters on whatever link is the bottleneck, on the other links, the queue sizes are zero. David Lang On Tue, 2 Jun 2020, Tianhe wrote: > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:49:15 +0800 > From: Tianhe > To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > Subject: [Bloat] Does employing a AQM on the home router also solve > bufferbloat between home router and upstream devices? > > Hi there. I've read some materials from bufferbloat.net and other sites, > trying to understand the problem as best as I can. > > And I have a question when reading this: > > From > https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/What_can_I_do_about_Bufferbloat/ > , it says: > > Once you fix it for your own network, it¢ll stay fixed for all time, and >> you won¢t be subject to changing practices at your ISP or other vendors. >> > > What does it mean? > > Does it mean that : > > if I employ a Smart Queue Management algorithms on my home router, it only > solves the bufferbloat problem between my home devices (desktop, laptop > ,cellphone) to my home router. But the buffers between my home router to > upstream devices (my home router ---> modem ---> ISP routers/switches) , > buffers between upstream devices, will still harm? So I only fix the > bufferbloat problem on my own local network? > > or it mean that employing a Smart Queue Management algorithms on the home > router also solve bufferbloat between home router and upstream devices? > > Thanks in advance. > --===============1469818852477289902== Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: Content-Disposition: INLINE X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KQmxvYXQgbWFp bGluZyBsaXN0CkJsb2F0QGxpc3RzLmJ1ZmZlcmJsb2F0Lm5ldApodHRwczovL2xpc3RzLmJ1ZmZl cmJsb2F0Lm5ldC9saXN0aW5mby9ibG9hdAo= --===============1469818852477289902==--