From: moeller0 <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
Cc: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>, cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cake] cake/tc - removal of atm/ptm/ethernet specific overhead keywords
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:59:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7E9009E9-DB53-4B0E-90F5-5DC3171BEC89@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a8j3fyxc.fsf@toke.dk>
Hi Toke,
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 16:27 , Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
>
> Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> It would be nice if LuCI could infer information about the likely
>> overheads from the rest of the configuration, and apply (or suggest &
>> default) the correct keywords in sqm-scripts. That would make the
>> feature much more widely used.
>
> We can probably do this for the most common cases, but am not so sure
> it's unambiguous when to pick what. If someone can supply a couple of
> examples of configuration where we are fairly certain we know what to
> pick, I can look into how that can be inferred in luci…
As I tried to convey before the matter is far from simple. For example my ISP, DTAG, has at least 4 different sets of per packet overhead (ATM versus PTM, BRAS versus BNG) so even for this one ISP there is not one solution to the issue. And with BRAS/BNG shaping as used by say DTAG the actual VDLS2 related overhead becomes irrelevant compared to the overhead setting of that applied policer. I believe trying to simplify this complexity will lead to false overhead recommendations. I would rather direct people to better documentation how to deduce the overhead by measurements and research…
Good
>
> -Toke
> _______________________________________________
> Cake mailing list
> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-02 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-02 9:37 Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
2016-06-02 14:22 ` Jonathan Morton
2016-06-02 14:27 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2016-06-02 14:49 ` Jonathan Morton
2016-06-02 15:42 ` moeller0
2016-06-02 17:40 ` Jonathan Morton
2016-06-02 18:53 ` moeller0
2016-06-02 18:55 ` Jonathan Morton
2016-06-02 19:17 ` moeller0
2016-06-02 14:59 ` moeller0 [this message]
2016-06-02 15:10 ` Jonathan Morton
2016-06-02 15:33 ` moeller0
2016-06-02 14:51 ` moeller0
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cake.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7E9009E9-DB53-4B0E-90F5-5DC3171BEC89@gmx.de \
--to=moeller0@gmx.de \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=chromatix99@gmail.com \
--cc=toke@toke.dk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox