From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-x236.google.com (mail-qk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::236]) (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 31A193B29E for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2018 18:13:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id v17-v6so8172592qkb.11 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2018 15:13:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kEEf8e0L6c1pJLGNQXyaK/LIXCUtYIKgMqhodx/VmhE=; b=LJN4TXGO47e04LW3bvx65mg5cUMhXXwqOEhs3mx1P3jCtMaXMU1/ViHIrUO0aRQ0bW hNB2RfBuzip490XF9MQ8xkPxLqCvEwC/SJ4Z8wInZlNS83suwHSPv3GoW+VNgSoE9Rs5 WfBGiSIVDYg/37iZMo2iQ/1wlDe4I33ku1yoe5Uru/YkDuwiutNRsURTlIv2Nr3C9RG/ 71IedbXs9pWiETgAL0W6a4b3A7VMbxUqMRmHHS4yQa2XaNhyKOQPVr3CmoQYh5MUq0r0 JwPo8k3Te3bpslefyKxJU52tBamG0n9K58Atz4Z1i5BE12uudIeaRTt8sbNjXMTqZeLu R30g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kEEf8e0L6c1pJLGNQXyaK/LIXCUtYIKgMqhodx/VmhE=; b=V1u8QNUoxfvVDRF9EhZn9D8OxKi+G/k6f6x74ay7JZHB1fGI1cf9Bu2dA0ONrw1C1c RjSUTS/ociFX7jVmskK36zaLDPckS/9nICq3Eq+v+Ctvnj9sA3RvUXo0i6WWn3ir2Gxh 5yuAT8xeNlD5dvQMEYoiCamN2ME4aOTFOF7n/4WHUoGvLwyUKsfgEcfJSHC0eql2+u0m ZjuJC1eSHRy4t8OG4dbWH+LOFiLFVzstI4KUq/NSOb3eM0CBJ6gDJgZhsdJxZQRm8MoG 9PvlYegFDucbn/qi0RKXfiKPSVt490C5qf+Io6zWK6BFqS7pGbHKbHXvH2wdtoNvK+Lj rBcA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHmQDz5WPMASfQJiZIfQrY+3eGDKt0868Pts0eHd/Ip3w13QXjq CV64H6C1DV/tMbMq66mVepEpxkQKIPWGStwYVZ0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcqtWcdXmkqdS6s+kAjdJ98m7D+IOIPr9cM/PXt3FtFqPWks445shr+Oi7gOzhdXBsbvd6NFforOyXwaLo18Ls= X-Received: by 2002:a37:2121:: with SMTP id h33-v6mr6471990qkh.319.1532211238686; Sat, 21 Jul 2018 15:13:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4C129A60-21D3-4B78-A764-DC8E2CD7E4DF@gmail.com> <6839ba220fe4399eba3620620515fc1dd801a509.camel@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 15:13:46 -0700 Message-ID: To: Arie Cc: Cake List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] inbound cake or fq_codel shaping fails on cable on netflix reno 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, 21 Jul 2018 22:13:59 -0000 wow. That is the best dslreports test result for cable I have ever had. with hping3 -2 -d 0 -s 10080 -k -p 80 -i u150 96.120.89.153 http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/36209937 Without: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/36210095 You say a different cablemodem does better without hping3 running? which? := ) Most of my production gear is based on an older arris modem (which is quite good), most of my test gear is a bunch of netgear (free) modems and service I got free from my time working for comcast. I haven't got around to springing for a docsis 3.1 modem yet (they are awfully pricy). On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:37 PM Dave Taht wrote: > > or, another way we might look at it is there is very little we can do > as the cmts has to have data in it in order to burst schedule the mac > for the next string of packets, much like how fq_codel for wifi has > "one in the hardware, one ready to go", a cmts has at least one in the > hardware (per channel? a multiple? what?). > > or I could be on drugs entirely. And this thread did start with > fast.com misbehaving badly regardless of the shaper in place or not, > which is not what I'm looking at now. I need to setup a 45ms rtt > test... > > anyway, as per your suggestion, the latency gets MUCH better with your > hping3 idea running, which implies that we've been fooled all along > by the rrul test. On the other hand, I think this will hurt other > cable modems on the same wire. On the gripping hand, I'm happier > knowing that with a busier network, docsis cable, when shaped, gets > better, and that I should junk my existing test cablemodem due to the > persistent spikes I see. > > I wonder if it's the sent path or the return path shattering latency > so well? I wonder if hping3 would count against your badwidth cap? > > going back to trying to figure out why fast.com is so gnarly > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:18 PM Arie wrote: > > > > I had a similar issue with my previous cable modem, whatever I shaped t= o didn't matter, I still had long delays. I "fixed" it by continuously send= ing a stream of empty UDP packets upstream: > > > > hping3 -2 -d 0 -s 10080 -k -p 80 -i u150 IP-OF-FIRST-OUTSIDE-CABLE-HOP-= HERE > > > > On 21 July 2018 at 22:36, Dave Taht wrote: > >> > >> This is my "inbound trying to shape a cable connection" smoking gun. > >> The delay curve is the same > >> shaping the 110mbit cmts down to 85mbit OR 55mbit. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Cake mailing list > >> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake > >> > > > > > -- > > Dave T=C3=A4ht > CEO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-669-226-2619 --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619