From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01E9B3B2A0 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 11:00:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.10.55] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MUkxk-1ayYyz0D9Q-00YDEm; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 17:00:01 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: moeller0 In-Reply-To: <87a8j3fyxc.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:59:59 +0200 Cc: Jonathan Morton , cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7E9009E9-DB53-4B0E-90F5-5DC3171BEC89@gmx.de> References: <574FFE52.1040501@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> <2A84540D-AA30-4BD0-AF9A-5510EA00B7E8@gmail.com> <87a8j3fyxc.fsf@toke.dk> To: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:WRq4r6QbtPCp9pLGerLgANXueSxBBSK5TTOuOEOmkTVtng9N6p+ MVj3X8JYfIuLI/xaC1NPy32bbmp4c+Zns4a2jQEQvfGhVaxTwvGhdQRH7pyAV3ptcedmUOY Ed8/Lb68j1pSR5A+as+EXKWwPBDv3HhTiomuIqyMmgYNgh5mISs2RTTex0QYUDa9hmg7r3r TTzADWitFMfHwv+SUmMvw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:v/f66g/XXCQ=:6PDYoxOav/kFmARJ19g/F4 gmfP0YCocENrwZzhNU2zeo132IsSkPKTUlodidqNGtpIpWdA2hbPVoQAXDn+Qxgzr0K5jPSit iKx2SviT3VkftfxZmeejsX2zb+8YRqS0k26TVn7jFlhd5sUOzwmZgti8o+Av3PCMovEmmjess jnRebb7mxI4Pywz1opaORF+nCkTvpdbMfktIzaOWYV42aglbdlOn1gT0VhYCiq+JgHLqPEt/H 8s+gU8lsSfBOhfDkvhmQ1EaC0lHWpuNr2Of6dje0WJAqzJdpOh7aBgLwB3YhLt30CupMSq8a2 UCtcGvBxEK0f/woE9oViiXtfnhh/aNTM7Cc7LhugivyyvbqpKkFxuERCBaylcjz3hKFoyTCwS qXVXcSymEdBqWkQlfZwt/RttOLxjHzlv9wVsUwRqabi3bUY7tiIV+iafHgHb67VC18eZcUejq K5duViHWYvRTWpil7L+2nLM8T9zvYb4W79rmBbLeLIAaDr5gyUcp+/GDJ/Oc+h+H87EgQG1lU OyhW6EVc23tEVouEbASvBsIodVKr6TOeyvHDo7VtY+zX7jBpiMjsoLV2qbJsXJu+QtwvZkL+Z /YtczdcR01vFANaFoUw3SPvm7hg3/b8YFKSceXE8OhS1LZcKSYM/WMBZmCngUqkYCMz67F+Gx H6CQk2PhpAomr44HvMpoG59EReRTOMmilqOOG3hglyyCirOzqhUaeHE4np/fimPUKpP/IVRkZ Ujickg/zsNkpaCALAaEvTsR5gMNRrXR2pizjERJ9DJAx54HMra2VgahE5Z/DgqhwOk7PENJmg xqYkNnD Subject: Re: [Cake] cake/tc - removal of atm/ptm/ethernet specific overhead keywords 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, 02 Jun 2016 15:00:06 -0000 Hi Toke, > On Jun 2, 2016, at 16:27 , Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen = wrote: >=20 > Jonathan Morton writes: >=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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=E2=80=A6 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=E2=80=A6 Good >=20 > -Toke > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake