From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vsmta16-2.nsc.no (vip22scan.telenor.net [148.123.15.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DB423B29E for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 01:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [153.110.251.167] ([153.110.251.167:55621] helo=ilp-smtp01.man.cosng.net) by vsmta16-2.nsc.no (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.6.22.53981 r(Core:3.6.22.0)) with ESMTPS (cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) id A3/80-33710-D6C69095; Wed, 03 May 2017 07:36:46 +0200 Received: from TNS-SKO-24-206.corp.telenor.no (TNS-SKO-24-206.corp.telenor.no [10.179.59.74]) by ilp-smtp01.man.cosng.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5742203A6; Wed, 3 May 2017 07:36:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from TNS-SKO-24-212.corp.telenor.no (10.179.59.80) by TNS-SKO-24-206.corp.telenor.no (10.179.59.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Wed, 3 May 2017 07:36:45 +0200 Received: from TNS-SKO-24-208.corp.telenor.no (10.179.59.76) by TNS-SKO-24-212.corp.telenor.no (10.179.59.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Wed, 3 May 2017 07:36:45 +0200 Received: from TNS-SKO-24-208.corp.telenor.no ([fe80::b024:7a41:ba33:25b6]) by TNS-SKO-24-208.corp.telenor.no ([fe80::b024:7a41:ba33:25b6%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Wed, 3 May 2017 07:36:45 +0200 From: To: CC: Thread-Topic: [Cake] Recomended HW to run cake and fq_codel? Thread-Index: AQHSwCP/lLDEM2lQwEWHw0Bwy0PLuKHa2hEAgAYAWQD///4xAIABQkwh Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 05:36:45 +0000 Message-ID: <1493789805885.56806@telenor.com> References: <1493397540.4184.959563328.3AB236CD@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1493721285271.28909@telenor.com>, <1493727080.1510042.962956680.40220FCB@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <1493727080.1510042.962956680.40220FCB@webmail.messagingengine.com> Accept-Language: nb-NO, en-US Content-Language: nb-NO X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.181.50.11] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SCAN_VERDICT: inbox Subject: Re: [Cake] Recomended HW to run cake and fq_codel? X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 05:36:48 -0000 > Fra: Nils Andreas Svee =0A= >=0A= > just fine, but I'd probably pick the ER-X-SFP for the beefier CPU, if=0A= > only to get some extra headroom. =0A= =0A= Then ER-X-SFP it is. =0A= =0A= =0A= >DSL tends to suck pretty (read: very) bad without proper shaping, I=0A= > know. On that note, are you planning to run an AQM on both ends of the=0A= > bottleneck, or shape ingress traffic via a IFB device? CAKE helps a lot= =0A= > when running on ingress, but it can't come close to running on both=0A= > ends.=0A= =0A= I intended to only shape on egress for this experiement. Let downstream be= handled by the BRAS's policies (Juniper ERX in our case). Most of the cus= tomer "speed" complaints come from not throughput but latency. And that la= tency is mostly ADSL/VDSL customers with large uploads to cloud services. = So I think that we will by handling the upstream better make a large improv= ement. But, hey, I call it an experiemnt because it is an experiemnt. If = we see significant improvements by using IFB for downstream as well. Then = we will try to see what we can do to implement this.=0A= =0A= =0A= -Erik=