From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (mail.lang.hm [64.81.33.126]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E828421F205 for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 12:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id t4IJfGqP026655; Mon, 18 May 2015 12:41:16 -0700 Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 12:41:16 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <554F64E1.6000609@gmail.com> <554F9594.60808@gmail.com> <7B7986E7-49A1-4EE1-B8D0-B55A6C2660A1@gmx.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/Mixed; BOUNDARY="===============2921308306145361808==" Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cake] More overhead keywords X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 19:42:17 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --===============2921308306145361808== Content-Type: TEXT/Plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 18 May 2015, Jonathan Morton wrote: > I've gone for the technical labels for three reasons. First, it reflects > what's actually happening, which generally reduces confusion in the long > run. Second, you might underestimate the number of ADSL ISPs worldwide, as > well as the difficulty of keeping such a database up to date. Third, every > DSL modem and ISP I know of has made it reasonably easy to discover at > least the base encapsulations - autodetection of vcmux vs llc isn't > absolutely reliable, for example. They might be less forthcoming about vlan > and FCS, but one can make intelligent guesses here, based on whether it's a > converged services ISP. offer both the official labels and some easy-to-understand boxes to use for example underlying packet size (ATM = 48, Ethernet = 1500) protocol overhead (various examples) David Lang > Ideally, we could do with a tool (at dslreports?) which makes detecting the > actual overhead easier. This would be doable using small packets to magnify > the differences. > > And if the user really can't work it out, they can always throw up their > hands and specify "conservative". > > - Jonathan Morton > --===============2921308306145361808== Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: Content-Description: Content-Disposition: INLINE _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake --===============2921308306145361808==--