I was looking at your Route10 product, but it looks to be consumer-heavy, at this point time. I run stuff like BGP in my home network (as I have MPLS-to-the-home delivery) and PIM-SM, would be cool if you folks supported some DC-fabric features on Route10 in the future with FRR as the daemon or something. One thing I'd like to mention, Route10 should have a good NAT implementation to support EIM-NAT for TCP/UDP to allow P2P networking to work over a NAT box. Additionally, support NAT Hairpinning for user's LAN subnets to allow intra-NAT traffic to work over STUN discovery, this eliminates TURN traffic. Small to large-scale CGNAT deployments around the globe is something I've been consulting for a few years now. I'm happy to potentially beta test your products, if you'd like, for best practices conformance with very specific RFCs. BQL would be good to have for long-term viewpoint, perhaps your Ethernet driver provider, could patch it up for BQL support and that would be a good foundation for FQ_Codel on your Route10. MikroTik has FQ_Codel, but lacks BQL, and they refused to listen to Fran and Dave Taht, so perhaps you folks are our only hope :) *--* Best Regards Daryll Swer Website: daryllswer.com On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 20:53, Jeff Hansen wrote: > Frank, > > The hardware that Route10 is based off of doesn’t support FQ Codel nor > CAKE at all, so everything is done in software on our 5.4 Linux kernel. It > works great, though. In some instances it’s the only way to max out a PPPoE > connection and have optimal latency. > > It doesn’t look like our ethernet driver supports BQL at all, so we > haven’t tried that yet, but as is, it absolutely eliminates high latency if > tuned properly. > > -Jeff > > On Mar 21, 2025, at 2:27 AM, Frantisek Borsik > wrote: > > Happy to see that! Thanks, guys. > > Adding Jeff > , > Alta Labs CTO - Darryl > > has a suggestion how to push this further: "Maybe they can add both > FQ_CoDel and CAKE with BQL support? How's hardware-offloading of FQ_CoDel > looking on these “prosumer” equipment these days? I haven't kept up over a > year on this topic." > > All the best, > > Frank > > Frantisek (Frank) Borsik > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik > > > Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 > > iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 > > Skype: casioa5302ca > > frantisek.borsik@gmail.com > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 3:44 AM Jonathan Morton > wrote: > >> > On 19 Mar, 2025, at 12:01 am, Frantisek Borsik via Cake < >> cake@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >> > >> > Should be pushed through production in day or two and they will be >> talking about it on https://streamyard.com/watch/ubYm2AffWkYi >> >> this Wednesday, March 19, at 1PM EST / 12PM CST / 11AM MST / 10AM PST >> >> I joined the stream, and was able to ask about the throughput they were >> getting with CAKE on their hardware. This is just for the "Route 10" >> rather than their APs, and they reported getting about 2.5Gbps throughput >> with CAKE enabled. They do correctly note that the hardware-accelerated >> forwarding path is disabled for the interface where CAKE is turned on. >> >> Supporting 2.5Gbps is pretty good I think, and should be sufficient to >> handle all practical Internet subscriptions that are likely to require >> bufferbloat mitigation. For comparison, on the same call they claimed >> about 800Mbps throughput for acting as a WireGuard tunnel endpoint. >> >> - Jonathan Morton > > >