From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21])
	(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 A5AB921F246
	for <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 12:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hms-beagle.home.lan ([87.164.165.7]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103)
	with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M93Jp-1YXn8O48LN-00CUGL for
	<cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 21:18:02 +0200
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EFD9024A-2241-4271-A767-270A41703A5D@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 21:18:00 +0200
To: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:kZKpe9xuOsfhmDF3IWsMN9iBec88GzVJm/AK/WJEcB1idMyPRR7
	HWawqfLTjkvTbyiQa6o87A/n8RN0xcDdYFmROlqQugLGp3xg5l1VLf3uSCnGMsKwZoT4/tg
	cQLTixPixATM4fGONxJqNDqDhtIPlOf7x6zwp4PUzlBSIQSNv7n/Up2Av7J1LgJBX6MggTy
	651fZiydUM+hKHfKI0HqA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Subject: [Cake] #17
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, 12 Apr 2015 19:18:34 -0000

Hi list, hi Dave

On Sat Apr 11 19:33:59 PDT 2015, Dave That <dave.taht at gmail.com> =
wrote:
17)  the atm compensation in cake is entirely untested. And it is
unclear as to how best handle pppoe.

Regarding ATM, it seems from =
http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Cake that there is only =
one command line argument =93atm=94 to activate accounting for atm =
encapsulation. I venture a guess that this will not be sufficient as it =
seems  necessary to add the per packet overhead before =93expanding=94 =
the packet size to the 43 in 53 atm cells. This might be really just a =
documentation issue (I have not looked agh cake=92s code, not that I a) =
read C well and b) know where to find the cake code repository). In my =
experience the relevant per packet overhead on the ATM link needs to be =
measured on each link individually (and repeatedly to catch the ISPs =
doing funny things like adding an otherwise invisible vlan tag on the =
atm link).

PPPoE, is easy, either drill into the packets to get the values used for =
hashing, or ask people to activate cake on the pppoe interfaces in the =
router (these typically do not show the pppoe headers so that classifier =
will find the right values). Or you could argue that a PPPoE link really =
is just one flow, and hence does not deserve special treatment ;) (which =
other =93multiplexors=94 would deserve the same special treatment =
SPDY/HTTP2?).

Best Regards
	Sebastian