From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-x230.google.com (mail-wr0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::230]) (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 667053B2A4 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:41:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-x230.google.com with SMTP id g19so24641802wrb.0 for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 08:41:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6lBac8eFwlAVDOIa2Y7DJaFyNYtNimqfMCVmeu1iRuo=; b=PhbZ3e40/EiCMqcmmsTNFEXIKZ74R/rzsANypTBZkHIGltIAUXhx5Q4Mc8lWdD1/ae bUY9EZa/nLEkL/9V0CwfJVl5CfE+tI591WsHktlshbZ8U9Ewd2NEQKDf0YIMeGZNHvi3 wZFBnB7PROwghiSNlKzot7l1P3N6Y8RnFfoBdDpifbIm0Uuv5X8gypyB7Urk7it+Gqeu 7OFHvHlwI6ake6aVn9obpQBb4bXsz93Jqbpq/xb7Ei3gWzukZWAjkFktm/GCCbG5fjcj 01Bfy9+tEK01EE1gPlkW8zcTiYwBFjpySwJ+SLouMjtjSqGTamMTcrQXWp6ozwhWBVhp 8k0Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6lBac8eFwlAVDOIa2Y7DJaFyNYtNimqfMCVmeu1iRuo=; b=uMMvGQOvqczamqJO+pr/2mcVcIqsdGN71T2QCBj1DZELQtNUMiznrl+mgG9IvXr2hS 0F0rs5mpNinN+G7tHFZ0R2XELhnTwZDD4J7PR1ffiyLAkcWLjUuyQVsihBv690R486MG oli4M0GmsxInHRu4JUnlbH2J/u0nO+aQfH0iIU5zv2fxOPVreVLwjFJgbj+jDTuBI6gK MqDfm3JuNqAROXOvgZyGh0USPO+99el9GOJIYtOmaxrhdP1Cwpc/Dv9ii5OolcATRQQA O/C72JhRTAhv2IKFkd0ntDbwxaw6ID+Yt9MEQhOzpoqtK4ooQFEoDvvaPOapBlSB6RiL p4Cg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3iu1rFWQ3uBphMxEeuhn5I9rGNKZJo8oCY10iGAm9nvbzfJ+0ks64Nj5Dsoi5MpA== X-Received: by 10.28.156.140 with SMTP id f134mr24145463wme.40.1491493306167; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 08:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (185.182.7.51.dyn.plus.net. [51.7.182.185]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q130sm12332639wmd.29.2017.04.06.08.41.45 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Apr 2017 08:41:45 -0700 (PDT) To: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <82EC6101-3328-451B-8445-C101C9E4A08F@gmail.com> From: Andy Furniss Message-ID: <2f543169-e5ad-1b9c-6c50-64747b717272@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:41:37 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <82EC6101-3328-451B-8445-C101C9E4A08F@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 15:41:47 -0000 Pete Heist wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:48:00 +0100 From: Andy Furniss >> 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& > > > > 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.