From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (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 91FCF3B2A4 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 14:28:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id v186so37299802wmd.0 for ; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 11:28:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZavvBvL/7+Db1y1vayXUhq77mJ1Ndlo92hfsQQWDtdg=; b=pq4+8b2HGp1ltaLk0n1d2/mrT5Wm2FllKK2A/NZMSiFCXlszTOjMb28pSgqE3y/MkN 89XXwhqo2Lhq69MBGkC2KHon8MUlsZhz/5BRCMiQtNliLHKQI4fs9kG0+h8s2qGR7inX Za+b6e2Z8afTAX04eRenoyU8+ye3l9R8roy3F7SQEJZB9Y7X+hlzbBWXTnfAKe/UOJ2r LtU7dEwk2JUj0XKZxOx/UZrd6FWMj63O7/Ux+0Np4XToXXVBz+eTgqNOnMFuZtBvYGUj XM/zYcxOnE8wBYYR0Yzo9A7SLsHtDPW7NFNa1ZCUFrc3wm3Db1P30ONT1dh4rgpQDtNz BsAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZavvBvL/7+Db1y1vayXUhq77mJ1Ndlo92hfsQQWDtdg=; b=kfseC19IDQHXC+2eVWlKNqJYwwOEOx8fx4RuCS/5Z64PDXzx63Yy4OeAhaHc6GV2NG aiHgE8ZQ5PYzNLfa4LuN+t5cgiS5RLWX8VegZYxUtQZetOCXOWU7X0RUpaTLN6YvKxel fRpGgqqNUjBwhmOfRrbVu5AelfUaYZ+NzZPcjejpztNW/tg9bBpW3NoWa+jd9NPY/PV3 VL8emfnbkiioPoze0FfifUwZdMREIxg4G5O7mu0inM67Z47NQ8OzELSDAv/XpWm7kQae zZOQcGLGtgXoe3ywyxTiF4P3Tpc+SV/EyI/hb2/39OIiZsVoG4jfZ+B1qi8hWalluX4k w3WQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lovIh4cEDmUNBT3gJLTk5YgpO5jrhGI9rGwOcdVq0+XiPi9hsybXcCCMFsNSv5kQ== X-Received: by 10.28.195.197 with SMTP id t188mr8257804wmf.61.1488655699584; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 11:28:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (189.182.7.51.dyn.plus.net. [51.7.182.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h75sm20181375wrh.37.2017.03.04.11.28.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 04 Mar 2017 11:28:19 -0800 (PST) To: Jonathan Morton Cc: Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <752ad487-0826-ba92-6bbf-a46d031a10ee@gmail.com> From: Andy Furniss Message-ID: <8ceb2396-b38b-8a69-9424-91935ddabc15@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 19:28:18 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Cake] low bandwidth default params best effort vs voice latency. 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, 04 Mar 2017 19:28:20 -0000 Jonathan Morton wrote: > >> On 4 Mar, 2017, at 20:21, Andy Furniss wrote: >> >> So I mark icmp as ef which does go to voice and repeat the test. >> >> It performs slightly worse for max delay. > > Hmm. > > If I’m reading those fping commands right, you’re sending a total of 36KB/s in ICMP (4x 60pps 150B), which should fit into the 25% Voice allocation on a 2Mbps (250KB/s) uplink. Under these circumstances, Voice should still be prioritised relative to Best Effort. Adding over 10ms of RTT is not what’s expected. > > Let me think carefully about how this filters through the priority layer. I may need to tweak it a bit. Thanks, I should be under rate, though for clarity I am using 3 pingers so 3x 62pps x (150 + 28 + 34) with my overheads.