From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "mout.gmx.net",
	Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BE5D21F661
	for <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from u-089-d061.biologie.uni-tuebingen.de ([134.2.89.61]) by
	mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
	0MWPOI-1ZQi6I19UQ-00Xf9v; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:17:32 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAJq5cE0vFCHL=Hg=Aw=cWyDqtt9CDgqXYhwsRHVb-VLDd409Hw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:17:30 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DFC102A7-73EC-4345-A23B-AFB195B64945@gmx.de>
References: <CAJq5cE2mzvOUmYsF=DgCaXke6xtxv57Ek7MRsM-wWyMrUPciZg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1437941360960.ed6ad09f@Nodemailer> <55B54BAE.5000002@gmail.com>
	<CAJq5cE0vFCHL=Hg=Aw=cWyDqtt9CDgqXYhwsRHVb-VLDd409Hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:9k19QGZVTJ3d5YPcaHxnTnu9Bw82oqaZg16Cx+Hf6JOUN0TizOz
	p1uNGdtntxoCovWopk8jsmYJAX0mNpTw+5rtxas+R0xq0gaGEJGVqi9wcfOudoPA6UVtmEX
	2hq9jo7N/ndHvSdzqdcFLEqGsmSoN5kqEKiwxtg90ZnYZATHZ2ONj0ibAPUUPWKhpKQolSN
	xtXfW5OYTVrFkWudUJo5g==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:YoA4Ula+H4I=:OjewFaNO3GCuYCVAdrcuwW
	qLO0NHxAASKthlxtZpXi8EIUavxEdDpdhVNiuenHROvefjIPL7K0FPMFzpia7s3vxVIrOftM0
	gFaC8aZgaiY3JshhCUfmWMiuitVePhbZcdPEWcRbQzyoZMEdF0WeeNrsNyiomgye79rsUXqQk
	2WdZ2ckIyHJhthF4Th6zn1DDnPaEKVzS8Nau22Os170yu/LxnlZWLToUMuwl/fe2r3aysNv4p
	9ogFLcV6xveGRdwQw2x1UD35q7gPgATg10sxdA924pEXPCGQQ+3a9E8H1JCG6O3xHv001CA/4
	3l6b95OOrz88qjwmTDBiB0cTBmtviApYbw3VTI+1HQxdwsUsbwAEcCiXlZakqdJpgCD20ws41
	i0uqFe5FdKxe8QiKTCZQfQiIFU9JZ1ZwBpzseN7KPmEOZT3xfTa04nFwumr9KDZ1wvswePqEv
	DQFi7lj0TnbaaFV7PFSnY90CDq0vi4bJfukoWe1a+uPYprRaGhoausHpxR6yptBrq5B86XSMy
	4ip8PctllRsHHmsbXOWCyfwYISBi+nXDAiwjzS/BdsnQT8Rj1JrOFCyRvZa4BXY0IwC44a85u
	56DHEyQAGBoJ+tp4lx3KSs7ThHAgzqVgfffUJTp5xerF/1s5Hpigijq58gZtQNjyPEFLK2o6T
	p82ynQuLKzf9pR02U99+LXV7/zH1xOroOXHKW6leia93rKeSVbESuvpz4LKe1L0h9gCA=
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 07:18:04 -0000

Hi Jonathan,

On Jul 26, 2015, at 23:20 , Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> =
wrote:

> Three reasons why a stackable peeler doesn't work so well:
>=20
> - 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.
>=20
> - A separate qdisc would not have the information about link bandwidth =
and active flow count that cake maintains, and uses to influence the =
peeler.
>=20
> - Peeling to individual IP packets is strictly necessary when =
encapsulation overhead needs to be calculated.

	Is not strictly right? I thought actual peeling or decomposition =
into maximally MTU-sized packets is not required, only doing the =
calculation how many packets would be the result and the size of each?

Best Regards
	Sebastian


>=20
> - Jonathan Morton
> _______________________________________________
> Cake mailing list
> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake