From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Croghan <tcroghan@lostcreek.tech>
Cc: Cake List <Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cake] ISP Implementation
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 10:14:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ABF98FD1-417C-4706-9423-FFE80CD991B6@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADmwGqvcnFbAnwqeFEKgYgmBA2CqB=6Gv8zwLbCrR470_ritKQ@mail.gmail.com>
> On 4 Mar, 2021, at 8:31 am, Thomas Croghan <tcroghan@lostcreek.tech> wrote:
>
> So this would be preferable right? <Theoretically unlimited bandwidth> -- <Cake Instance Limiting bandwidth going left to right> -- <Some sort of limit to 100 Mbps> -- <Cake Instance Limiting bandwidth going right to left> -- <10 x 25 Mbps Customers>
Yes, putting the Cake instances associated with the backhaul link upstream of the link in both directions like that is better for a number of reasons. You can still have the instances managing individual customers on the right-hand side, or even further to the right.
If the customer links are physically wider in the upstream direction than is made available to the customer, then there's no problem in doing all the per-customer work in an aggregated position. The difference (in the long run) between the traffic transmitted by the customer and that released to traverse the backhaul is limited to AQM activity on Not-ECT traffic, which will be small, unless they start flooding in which case the overload protection will kick in and start dropping a lot of packets. This is also what you'd expect to see with a well-behaved policer in the same position.
- Jonathan Morton
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-04 8:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-04 1:54 Thomas Croghan
2021-03-04 2:47 ` Jonathan Morton
2021-03-04 2:51 ` Dave Taht
2021-03-04 2:55 ` Jonathan Morton
2021-03-04 3:14 ` Dave Taht
2021-03-04 3:18 ` Jonathan Morton
2021-03-04 6:31 ` Thomas Croghan
2021-03-04 8:14 ` Jonathan Morton [this message]
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=ABF98FD1-417C-4706-9423-FFE80CD991B6@gmail.com \
--to=chromatix99@gmail.com \
--cc=Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=tcroghan@lostcreek.tech \
/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