Re: [Cake] flow isolation for ISPs

[Andy Furniss <adf.lists@gmail.com>]

Pete Heist wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:48:00 +0100 From: Andy Furniss
>> <adf.lists@gmail.com> To: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re:
>> [Cake] flow isolation for ISPs
>>
>> Pete Heist wrote:
>>
>>> Cake is not a requirement yet. I like it for several of its
>>> attributes (good performance with high numbers of flows, and also
>>> when “over-limiting”, which I’ll explain more in my next round of
>>> point-to-point WiFi results).
>>
>> Would be nicer for your users though?
>>
>> I mean in the sense that if the "outer" hash could be done on some
>> mark then the inner hash on connection as normal then they would
>> get more than a fifo, which seems to be how current solutions are
>> heading.
>>
>> TBH, though I don't even get your set up - I mean is WISP like some
>> giant lan, or does anyone that asks get a real IP, do subscribers
>> normally have more than one access point? Just curious.
>
> Cake has some nice qualities, yes, so we’ll see.
>
> The network has been assembled over a number of years, by a number
> of people (not by me personally), so it has a life of its own, but
> works quite well, from a member’s perspective. :) I’m still figuring
> out more about it myself, but it consists of a series of nodes, each
> of which has at least a router, a WiFi AP for clients and an uplink
> to the Internet connection either with point-to-point WiFi or some
> other means (fiber, licensed radios, etc). If you want an idea:
>
> http://mapa.czfree.net/#lat=50.76816800116274&lng=15.066890716552734&zoom=13&autofilter=1&type=satellite&geolocate=98%7C114%7C111%7C117%7C109%7C111%7C118%7C115%7C107%7C97&node=6101&aponly=1&bbonly=1&actlink=1&actnode=1&tilt=0&heading=0&
>
>
<http://mapa.czfree.net/#lat=50.76816800116274&lng=15.066890716552734&zoom=13&autofilter=1&type=satellite&geolocate=98|114|111|117|109|111|118|115|107|97&node=6101&aponly=1&bbonly=1&actlink=1&actnode=1&tilt=0&heading=0&>
>
> In some cases, like mine, my CPE has a single IP address from the
> node’s router. In others, where there are nodes on top of apartment
> buildings for example, members connect with Ethernet straight to the
> router on the roof of the building, and IP addresses come from the
> DHCP server on that router, and they get multiple IPs.
>
> So it’s a mixture in this case, and that’s what makes hashing only
> by IP address, or by IP address and flow, not ideal.

Ahh, OK, complicated then.

FWIW you may already know, but as I haven't read u32 docs for years I
don't know if it says but -

To match macs you use (IIRC from a decade ago) negative offsets, so -2
will get ethertype, -8  for 6 bytes is src -14 for dst.