From: Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com>
To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cake] flow isolation for ISPs
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:48:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AC789C05-DEA7-46B8-987D-CCE07C6EF0C6@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1704060137130.3412@qynat-yncgbc>
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 10:39 AM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2017, Pete Heist wrote:
>
>> Suppose there is a cooperative ISP that has some members who access the network through a single device (like a router with NAT), while others use multiple devices and leave routing to the ISPs routers. (No need to suppose, actually.)
>>
>> There’s fairness at the IP address level (currently with esfq, maybe soon with Cake), but it's not fair that members with multiple devices effectively get one hash bucket per device, so if you have more devices connected at once, you win. There is a table of member ID to a list of MAC addresses for the member, so if there could somehow be fairness based on that table and by MAC address, that could solve it, but I don’t see how it could be implemented.
>
> well, if the congested link is not the last-mile link to a user, the right answer is probably to increase the capacity of the link, and fairness issues would be a temporary thing until the link was upgraded.
>
> remember that the fairness is a means to an end, good reponsive service. As long as the result is responsive for all users, a bit of unfairness is acceptable.
It’s a good point, but for a non-profit cooperative WISP, each hardware upgrade/installation can be a decision. In some locations and times there’s congestion in the backhaul, in others not. So it’s not always practical in this case to solve it by adding more hardware…
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-06 8:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-06 8:27 Pete Heist
2017-04-06 8:39 ` David Lang
2017-04-06 8:48 ` Pete Heist [this message]
2017-04-06 8:57 ` Jonathan Morton
2017-04-06 9:04 ` Pete Heist
2017-04-06 10:26 ` Andy Furniss
2017-04-06 9:11 ` Jonathan Morton
2017-04-06 9:26 ` Pete Heist
2017-04-07 8:13 ` Pete Heist
2017-04-07 8:28 ` Jonathan Morton
2017-04-07 9:37 ` Pete Heist
2017-04-07 11:13 ` Sebastian Moeller
2017-04-07 11:42 ` Pete Heist
2017-04-08 6:16 ` Pete Heist
2017-04-07 10:56 ` John Sager
2017-04-06 9:33 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2017-04-06 10:26 ` Pete Heist
2017-04-06 10:50 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2017-04-06 11:34 ` Pete Heist
2017-04-06 12:14 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2017-04-06 13:30 ` Pete Heist
2017-04-06 13:42 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2017-04-06 13:50 ` Pete Heist
2017-04-06 14:41 ` Dave Taht
2017-04-06 12:48 ` Andy Furniss
2017-04-06 13:19 Konstantin Shalygin
[not found] <mailman.340.1491486631.3609.cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
2017-04-06 14:18 ` Pete Heist
2017-04-06 15:41 ` Andy Furniss
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=AC789C05-DEA7-46B8-987D-CCE07C6EF0C6@gmail.com \
--to=peteheist@gmail.com \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=david@lang.hm \
/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