From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
To: Pete Heist <pete@eventide.io>, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Cc: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cake] Pre-print of Cake paper available
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:15:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fu3l7yp4.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C12BEBB3-445E-4FC7-8F98-B8CA73090CC3@eventide.io>
Pete Heist <pete@eventide.io> writes:
>> On Apr 24, 2018, at 10:50 AM, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think, if we wanted to support the ISP case, that a per-customer *shaper* is more useful.
>>
>> Yes, I think the technology can be recoded to better suit a
>> multi-subscriber environment; it would no longer be Cake, but would
>> use some of the same key algorithms.
>
> Right, I was going to comment on the paper- where’s the ISP backhaul
> use case? (Because I might still try to use it that way.) But I was
> sure that this was already considered, and am not surprised that it
> might be a different but related project.
Well, you could use it on an ISP backhaul by having a separate CAKE
instance per customer, and having another mechanism to assign customer
traffic to each. An HTB tree would be one way to do this; separate
interfaces per customer would be another. The latter works well if
customers are on separate VLANs, for instance...
But yeah, having a single instance of CAKE solve all of your customer
shaping problems is probably not in scope currently... ;)
-Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-24 9:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-23 8:39 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-23 9:54 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-23 23:01 ` Pete Heist
2018-04-23 23:31 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-24 5:44 ` Pete Heist
2018-04-24 5:58 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-24 7:15 ` Pete Heist
2018-04-24 7:56 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-04-24 8:45 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-24 8:57 ` Pete Heist
2018-04-25 18:44 ` David Lang
2018-04-25 20:28 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-26 19:27 ` Pete Heist
2018-04-27 11:08 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-27 11:20 ` Pete Heist
2018-04-24 8:17 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-04-24 8:47 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-24 8:50 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-24 9:06 ` Pete Heist
2018-04-24 9:15 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2018-04-24 9:36 ` Pete Heist
2018-04-24 9:18 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-04-24 9:30 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-24 9:38 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-04-24 9:44 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-24 15:08 ` John Yates
2018-04-24 8:43 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
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=87fu3l7yp4.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@toke.dk \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=chromatix99@gmail.com \
--cc=moeller0@gmx.de \
--cc=pete@eventide.io \
/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