From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (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 A5B503B29E for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 03:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id r190so46322520wme.1 for ; Wed, 03 May 2017 00:15:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=18VJDpmRWIUkGIJSWjR97cYbJmuJ0y+Mj0YyxM6rD1k=; b=rSlpyKH/DkEBxnBESaZ7Men1apPVGAc1tOGvHSF1yc6qbXjaWLu5l6G6dHZm3aGSF8 f7Pa4derszCunBd531v//RSjPdmqkTR0iSCB38PvqbXm6JqK1r901/KRjWkybAyx8ghA lWcg9YkzdP9bXlOhPdZRIBKkkNiRBy49eiUKmqUZmUtQykjhs6F3u5KoeKT/96Sl2N2Q HuySxA8Od4NTZit7FCrukA2ab+HYtNLy9QfMnoU3BUaY4es2DX5K4azWI2mfFdci5sj0 6k9+SzR1nv79ZO3HBgoHpmwxUXroO5wVTq0GZQ0zxlSc9E3O1YCQcaPmu4feUdkggkGb yi9Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=18VJDpmRWIUkGIJSWjR97cYbJmuJ0y+Mj0YyxM6rD1k=; b=uWiqhvq69yTt4E7sXhi9E/xocZwK62vK8n1BBNEfgR0C1DPMAwIThIncqd+OIO1R+v He6fHYxJ6JQFmgZ8+JeE6W9/llY+1mlEIxx1yAIimx4PovIKoEO5Z8dC67ax59AJG8Qd E+KLyiZb7ImXFW9nAHly70FH3MaKg4Hv9ddaiA+mCE3aPKKop+NySPBEXTwXULTh64Tb EDubAvng98xZ+Va1G0/l/jZUFkLKeXqYPRup99VWcHWxaCdu3ScXJ4hPIvMDCwlj62hw 92FTIOGRG27blqtqAjgJPYpZv+be8SFhCLV+zVhuq4ths/6wGilcN5uXD0xYZxynnKxT E4kA== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4NUpr/Le17NfliRADLivvl28mpTFxVWzuYYJ5Ory0snm/FIhzd W/IC4kJYVzprlQ== X-Received: by 10.28.153.194 with SMTP id b185mr235910wme.101.1493795744496; Wed, 03 May 2017 00:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.72.0.130] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.99.119.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 2sm3958590wmk.20.2017.05.03.00.15.43 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 03 May 2017 00:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Pete Heist In-Reply-To: <1493791193941.83458@telenor.com> Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 09:15:42 +0200 Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <7B914FA7-38A6-4113-9B2C-D6246873676A@gmail.com> <1493791193941.83458@telenor.com> To: erik.taraldsen@telenor.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Cake] Recomended HW to run cake and fq_codel? 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: Wed, 03 May 2017 07:15:45 -0000 > On May 3, 2017, at 7:59 AM, = wrote: >=20 >> It=92s an interesting question: what can be done as an ISP? = Essentially it boils down to the fundamentals=20 >> of deploying AQM- finding where the queues are forming and placing = fq_codel or Cake at the=20 >> bottleneck links, preferring =93hardware=94 queue management like BQL = or in the case of WiFi the ath9k=92s=20 >> driver in LEDE, over soft rate limiting, where possible. When soft = rate limiting, the rate limiting strategy=20 >> and chosen rate are the most CPU intensive and finicky parts of = deploying AQM. >=20 > What I see as short term posibiliteis for us as ISP's is to push our = vendors to include this as a part of the feature set. We also could do = better with the maketing. Lets steal an idea from the Video area. HD = is often written as 1080P@60. Why not do the same for internet speed? = 60M@80ms. Where the @80ms would be the larges latency in either = direction that queue management would introduce? (This of cource = introduces the risk of artificialy tuning the @xxms to low and ending up = with strict policing) True, in the same way max throughputs have been pushed up various ways, = I wouldn=92t want to see a latency war where =91pfifo limit 2=92 is = being deployed, and yet I like the idea of spreading awareness about the = importance of latency. When I hear users ask =93is it stable?=94, I = think latency is a big part of what they=92re asking about without = realizing it. There=92s a certain =93latency stress" that comes when = clicking a link on the web and not getting an immediate response. I = wonder if anyone has studied that. >> - I don't understand why ADSL modem vendors don=92t just bake = BQL-like functionality right into their=20 >> devices so they can ship AQM without the need for soft rate limiting. = AQM is so effective on ADSL's=20 >> upstream that it seems it would just make a lot of sense. For that = matter, why not on the DSLAM as well=20 >> to shape the customer=92s downstream, if that=92s also a bottleneck? >=20 > I think most ISP's handle shaping on the BRAS level rather than on the = DSLAM, as DSLAM's in general have very limited shaping/qos capabilities. That makes sense. I=92ve never worked with provider side ADSL equipment = so I lumped it all under the term =93DSLAM=94, not knowing what a BRAS = was before. :)=20 Another option for ISPs (failing AQM support in the devices, and instead = of deploying devices on the customer side), could be to provide each = customer a queue that=92s tuned to their link rate. There could be an = HTB tree with classes for each customer and Cake at the leafs. Knowing = each customer=92s link rate (assuming it=92s not variable) you=92d set = HTB=92s rate to something less than that. There would be work to do as = each customer is added and removed, but at least it would be transparent = to them. AQM is best done at egress where packets originate, so I=92m = not sure how well it would work in practice. What=92s usually used for an ADSL provider=92s backhaul, fiber?=