From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-yk0-x22f.google.com (mail-yk0-x22f.google.com
	[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22f])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
	Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCE7B21F825
	for <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ykay190 with SMTP id y190so55552316yka.3
	for <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=nE0UjBCSXWN7YWLDJnHkdrUellImk0pXgGh9g5cVFl0=;
	b=Ra9s5HwUrAJyG1D0Z4IYJdsfQMO3ixZ6RZ4LoY9HgAC878KhL8nUYXMDLS88KXmwMA
	Fkuzy1/vm0oQ+F4Fz9q1oTMiwtdzkUs8uBDQcb4GQGX/6uY01xVmR5Eb+EZaCR0u0/e8
	v0obkQxuUKXDv4tgIOfDpqEM3GRepkfO+miDQ11AFWaJQPuOMWSJcN3OCEoGVUHDrhtv
	fs3KvaeQ/Vbu8Qvk4TkkqCD7SobQVJX2XiW9Am6xHgxlosh7rESSbl1af8YMmzWUpDOr
	nDkYvErhWYhtxGk1de+DZ59nqMJLdVEKgWHTzStDIO3yeo9/B8sOzQuxWf/wsn1F6op0
	nrCQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.170.146.7 with SMTP id n7mr26504346ykc.100.1437945625400;
	Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.60.133 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.60.133 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55B54BAE.5000002@gmail.com>
References: <CAJq5cE2mzvOUmYsF=DgCaXke6xtxv57Ek7MRsM-wWyMrUPciZg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1437941360960.ed6ad09f@Nodemailer> <55B54BAE.5000002@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:20:25 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJq5cE0vFCHL=Hg=Aw=cWyDqtt9CDgqXYhwsRHVb-VLDd409Hw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
To: Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1139f1aa355af9051bcdcea3
Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cake] How to test Cake on TP-Link WDR3600
X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation <cake.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/cake>,
	<mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cake>
List-Post: <mailto:cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake>,
	<mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:20:55 -0000

--001a1139f1aa355af9051bcdcea3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Three reasons why a stackable peeler doesn't work so well:

- There is some overhead from stacking, due to passing packets up and down
the stack. It also incurs at least one packet of unmanaged buffer.

- A separate qdisc would not have the information about link bandwidth and
active flow count that cake maintains, and uses to influence the peeler.

- Peeling to individual IP packets is strictly necessary when encapsulation
overhead needs to be calculated.

- Jonathan Morton

--001a1139f1aa355af9051bcdcea3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<p dir="ltr">Three reasons why a stackable peeler doesn&#39;t work so well:</p>
<p dir="ltr">- There is some overhead from stacking, due to passing packets up and down the stack. It also incurs at least one packet of unmanaged buffer.</p>
<p dir="ltr">- A separate qdisc would not have the information about link bandwidth and active flow count that cake maintains, and uses to influence the peeler.</p>
<p dir="ltr">- Peeling to individual IP packets is strictly necessary when encapsulation overhead needs to be calculated.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> - Jonathan Morton<br>
</p>

--001a1139f1aa355af9051bcdcea3--