From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA15821F824 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so88108483wib.0 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:38:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+MHI+Rd+5/S9IpKQLl3P4dV9w9eDG5RcfvncUvU9qd0=; b=yP6JY/P/sLzN2bi/OhbOXlNZYQGHC4BVBw42zimqYv5zzT00aQ5FKk/Pc8EjLcnO4G SxqMFLJ4jQ7laivzfrka+MpNdZI2iuGAsMqsFpXCuSWvLNG2DAKlpOthPg9E/Gh6IPt/ bFSHXi515D1/k9sw5nogrgoCNZGGG6BFnoS2j6JnPcoInBb9zszDSXN/8kU/ZH65fLAw 8dj+3gWUQ5ztJHMd2J5gKnlL3Ag/r27D8lRdWxGWcod8wd+ERGgEQiG67AdBCxkKkZ/W QgAf1GTQuOjlz71R55Wz4CuisO1INMtV1gvRFNDc0zQ9kAAxeox3b54I1bgXYkE6meR4 SbLQ== X-Received: by 10.194.10.165 with SMTP id j5mr51923061wjb.147.1437946708936; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from volcano.localdomain (host-89-243-101-59.as13285.net. [89.243.101.59]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id c11sm10148147wib.1.2015.07.26.14.38.27 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:38:28 -0700 (PDT) To: Jonathan Morton References: <1437941360960.ed6ad09f@Nodemailer> <55B54BAE.5000002@gmail.com> From: Alan Jenkins Message-ID: <55B55353.5030104@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 22:38:27 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cake] How to test Cake on TP-Link WDR3600 X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:38:59 -0000 On 26/07/15 22:20, Jonathan Morton wrote: > > Three reasons why a stackable peeler doesn't work so well: > > - There is some overhead from stacking, due to passing packets up and > down the stack. > > It also incurs at least one packet of unmanaged buffer. > > - A separate qdisc would not have the information about link bandwidth > and active flow count that cake maintains, and uses to influence the > peeler. > Sold! Not that I'm a netdev reviewer, but it's a nice explanation of the design. I.e. cake knows the minimum processing necessary to achieve the goal. The rest can still be left to hardware. And now I recall peeling came from tbf, I guess it's not that odd. Thanks for the illumination. Alan > - Peeling to individual IP packets is strictly necessary when > encapsulation overhead needs to be calculated. > > - Jonathan Morton >