From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5AE33CB39 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 06:55:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1522493717; bh=gx9yKLfucNKC/rUrWiXPj0rt+KWNnuoqrb7SEwaLCbk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=JvJWMXLEDFO6zdb55jaVIPkT2aI6YzhbhJIxam4PKkSkoM4yRBsfAzthW7z68uW2j fop30dTH3VqNB1U4+epS8Up27GzxkmC0pRH4HwT0oi9RscXd4E0OYM6i4lsf8Ocz6S p760UPEgnzAyd/oJMe7QKeKeyiKPHi8X5uQd/6OBtJ0KeAA24zeC+BhmHRQyo62dnD I3fkNlas464zCepDX+IM/w0eXLA5zochjNS4o3OLmstJa9IaUfA8VNxpuVN4khGJLo H2vHk9OIcpQh4+HoJzCrsNC+B6UIRAXO6yPM1oavNZJezBcWn+nc+dEZt3q8DU/JHV 7MF6Xj2vu5eFA== To: Jonathan Morton , Pete Heist Cc: Cake List In-Reply-To: <7407AA6C-F02D-4EC6-BF0A-C50E7B365433@gmail.com> References: <87k1twgpsy.fsf@toke.dk> <0FDFC78B-95A4-4A4E-8498-6C4AC9610BD0@gmail.com> <33060CFE-064A-426C-8F29-721DA2F058F3@eventide.io> <7407AA6C-F02D-4EC6-BF0A-C50E7B365433@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 12:55:16 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87lge8jyzv.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Cake] bufferbloat still misunderstood & ignored 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: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 10:55:18 -0000 Jonathan Morton writes: >> On 30 Mar, 2018, at 11:05 am, Pete Heist wrote: >> >> So this mapping from member (subscriber) to their MACs or IPs would need to be configurable somewhere > > Yes, I assumed something like that would be required to assign the > correct tier of service (or BRAS rate) to each subscriber, and that's > what makes it ISP-focused rather than end-user focused. > > In Linux it appears to be possible to assign a flow mark (ie. a > number) to packets using firewall rules or qdisc filters, and the > subscriber ID and tier ID could probably be encoded into that. It > would then only be necessary to inform the qdisc of this encoding (how > many bits for each portion) and to define the tiers. Even better, you can do arbitrary programmable matching these days, using tc-bpf(8). Theoretically FQ-CoDel supports this in place of the built-in flow hashing; but I have never managed to get it configured correctly (haven't tried that hard, though). -Toke