From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-x242.google.com (mail-lf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAE193B29E for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 04:57:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id n78so3085108lfi.3 for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 01:57:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=O3+6Ii9O0vjEVTjZivOpdCzY2P51eDbJaDbIaygRsxQ=; b=F807IHPDCDwCd9SM6pm6n3dgWBq0boyIEd7EYSuzU5aZ+8zzWeEGaDJ9Oz2SYY8gPU Wq60V3SSzIsT3cBTMHoLwxGQqGE4/xsBeINCaYKKatB14pxaVqQpKbbZJSFcEQmE6CRM ajRGHvHMK93kseSNnriAUJQVD+dq/NzJOFTIi2Wcyf8e5tKB14+0z9t1KRDe/PLuUV9v VDtpiuxHhvq6vYFKZrLgwRDguD2nyTgaiWlqu4SD9cGy416uc3XcTch/tPm03wuIctiV sQUwzjVy+he1J0q99hojDSNh2TyA029Pr+ExZSCXokS+5fm7f1DFd2dmrualI1Ysk4ut bFeg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=O3+6Ii9O0vjEVTjZivOpdCzY2P51eDbJaDbIaygRsxQ=; b=nh1FGixYPV0kgvGEkkXKx+7IfFU1D7s8t8vfj8OzAvilbOEuE97B8mRb7bXmY7spcb CfF0L55o73uLWzLQsqtMnOq0UnvT014fuNVScFVzzjvlChmNodjGk1xATOf31csHx04V /cy4DsI1Vas6cp+FTQdpb8eXZSO/rsnH16CRIMuPfoCCaWEpAn/rzdTdUTQCMd23eIpk cBEPXBuK8Dk0Q76PmPaICmcP/gIE2NfDoWJ/fA302vmyCSvYfvcvYNq0T6iU2jcrYcBK QCsa/yKfjRWqg3GjXXiqNVUTb0qfS6V0YMHGFOI1RyR1MFvZrJC5oqOOFuXON+Z+gSGs jYnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2W02VZU9BS6DrE1NtpnxZ7mglUzf1xQvI6emaT4ivL2mz1YU6EkMpyh8dbTh33Ww== X-Received: by 10.25.17.98 with SMTP id g95mr11469980lfi.69.1491469064661; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 01:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.14] (37-219-158-10.nat.bb.dnainternet.fi. [37.219.158.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n20sm201286lfb.53.2017.04.06.01.57.43 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Apr 2017 01:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <2FD59D30-3102-4A3E-A38E-050E438DABF0@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:57:42 +0300 Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2EAA1B56-8CAD-4964-9DD7-99D54B82D44B@gmail.com> References: <2FD59D30-3102-4A3E-A38E-050E438DABF0@gmail.com> To: Pete Heist X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Cake] flow isolation for ISPs 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: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 08:57:46 -0000 > On 6 Apr, 2017, at 11:27, Pete Heist wrote: >=20 > Suppose there is a cooperative ISP that has some members who access = the network through a single device (like a router with NAT), while = others use multiple devices and leave routing to the ISPs routers. (No = need to suppose, actually.) >=20 > There=E2=80=99s fairness at the IP address level (currently with esfq, = maybe soon with Cake), but it's not fair that members with multiple = devices effectively get one hash bucket per device, so if you have more = devices connected at once, you win. There is a table of member ID to a = list of MAC addresses for the member, so if there could somehow be = fairness based on that table and by MAC address, that could solve it, = but I don=E2=80=99t see how it could be implemented. >=20 > Is it possible to customize the hashing algorithm used for flow = isolation, either with Cake or some other way? That is an important use-case, and one that Cake is not presently = designed to explicitly accommodate. Currently, the design assumes a = single Cake instance per subscriber or household, and fairness between = hosts within a household is assumed to be a relatively simple problem. Also, Cake=E2=80=99s general philosophy of simplifying configuration = means that it=E2=80=99s unlikely to ever support =E2=80=9Clists=E2=80=9D = or =E2=80=9Ctables=E2=80=9D of explicit parameters. This is a conscious = design decision to enable its use by relative non-experts. Arguably, = even some of the existing options could reasonably be streamlined away. With that said, a related qdisc *with* such support is eminently = feasible, and could easily be the focus of a project. I think it would = be worth gathering requirements for such a thing and considering = potential funding sources. - Jonathan Morton