From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32D1F3B2A3 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 10:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id m123so36130616wma.0 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 07:03:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:from:to:references:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5rVY2xgs00+Nqxb8GH1+PpXwf+BQ4MwM5BxXkR+2sp8=; b=tpAZt9zOnz/a1n/UNz+VxoaorUMiZCig/R7tdT90HLMczFWZHhL6U6GAzT9TkG3kh1 L9t30wZjDQQWLE9MJ/Jaim5MBjlN+Ia3bsJXP5dwNs1sYeNOqr0MptWKaoODJNX3TM9F o4mJz1BMzQi3orb/F6hATBKYRff4+FqI2B9gJEG1NRAaUmsZ9lywmnu9A1+FT/C/IuJo VdSlNu6cgMSiOwEjVFY1SxcDaoTIwlFiaD0ZGBhK76LvZXxJOptPFXADviklajjbX80E bzxucUadtOJJ9pkO5TVcpb7HtV/NdhcW588yqcAGE2EFj57SMQAqYPksn/tdRnUTOIVe 2kGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:from:to:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5rVY2xgs00+Nqxb8GH1+PpXwf+BQ4MwM5BxXkR+2sp8=; b=gfjTw9lDvYxdiuPe7H11UdkRicIDP1/NDuRgin4tlDnBI9leqDgMGDNc0vH68AYuhc u9Yhjh0ZhbK+iIeLXB7c2tSmSkjLHEZhh1GRO6olihPHJgc3Abrg9J8iPnTE/eQrIcx+ N9lezsI5cPCnJPxBzgsgVRdVvtbsgC8uSkqY42LW8Uxo8sq2suavb+bQ0vRcSiGi8VAi FztU+uwn+CjVDAKBst0uIWoV/rNL/Tj4EpxutFbzxtsWGKpmAOmfSAH+6J6vEWtUGG4l t1RRo1J8jxeZGZMSQoqxU6/tZhYNLX8Sj+LrHV9clKaxCNErC9E+dII8uuEYwW8XEAZ7 28hA== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/77hGVMEoH0v8JJwBjZiLUMiFOlUAsMKYScTiroxlsNLS5/sfUm 8UplBBqogkbFh5wx X-Received: by 10.28.199.76 with SMTP id x73mr3059347wmf.95.1492869820875; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 07:03:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (185.182.7.51.dyn.plus.net. [51.7.182.185]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 32sm15395374wrq.34.2017.04.22.07.03.39 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 22 Apr 2017 07:03:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Andy Furniss To: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <05C0B0C7-4337-4115-AC6B-DA81392FCB34@gmail.com> <22E633CF-5EE0-4B0F-89A8-B790E730FB6C@gmx.de> <37ea1abc-8c08-784c-0873-ed6df8d089ca@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ab8a7e3-3946-a555-ef76-e0acfc16eda8@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:03:39 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/54.0 SeaMonkey/2.51a2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <37ea1abc-8c08-784c-0873-ed6df8d089ca@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Cake] Getting Cake to work better with Steam and similar applications 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, 22 Apr 2017 14:03:42 -0000 Andy Furniss wrote: > Jonathan Morton wrote: >>>> So please add “atm overhead 32" to cake on eth0 or “atm >>>> overhead 40” to cake instances on pppoe (these packets do not >>>> have the PPPoE header added yet and hence appear 8 bytes to >>>> small). >>> >>> Thanks for your help, will definitely use them. Just wondering if >>> I use "pppoe-vcmux/bridged-llcsnap" on eth0 or "pppoe-llcsnap" on >>> pppoe0 would have the same effect? Or are there some other >>> "under-the-hood" changes when using them? >> >> On the pppoe interface, use pppoe-vcmux if your modem is set to use >> VC-MUX, or pppoe-llcsnap if it’s set to use LLC-SNAP (they might >> be described using slightly different terms, but should still be >> recognisable as one or the other). This probably depends on your >> ISP, and may further vary regionally within the same ISP. >> >> I really prefer to use the self-explanatory keywords (which is why >> I added them in the first place) instead of opaque magic numbers. >> This is a point on which Sebastian has long disagreed with me. > > Either way (or maybe not!), what about the observation that > attaching cake on pppoe, for me at least, required the use of the raw > param due to the "auto compensation" mechanism seeing pppoe as +8 > when the actual packets are just ip len so not +8. My case is not atm though, perhaps the atm param cancels out all other auto overhead compensation?