From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-x22d.google.com (mail-wr0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F18983B2A3 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 07:43:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id l37so99926471wrc.1 for ; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 04:43:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=55EPNRYMz8Fs9oRSF1JSCAnNsOyD/H+4d7oTjJl06gc=; b=SlxNXweVzpjPKV2hcZENVsLRCoRN9FiFUjskWM1eBuT5+Y5pbUIfotTI+BFpOdYZ4W O5IhpRDoHxajpIXGZeZhXJbTXsUEh339xWYuE5U6eL+loS/5/kMerTqqU72kbzmySeg9 aKhdHeP1L2KLNpcGtlDxMJY5+Yg6lAEO5wvXNBvTa0lBdn46ouNMaV6kmWQPRltpq3A5 ECYsrgCaFTPvKblgnA3/cg+Vn8pqRnh2x738oc+54jMXglQ+Q+VDdHEGDAkn+WHW2MtO HDQpZqqTPBTMM++HLSqHsKudjraKwpy7xpj4AxkAFwQ+O5mcWJGn3dAN5HoPEOODd7yf htnA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=55EPNRYMz8Fs9oRSF1JSCAnNsOyD/H+4d7oTjJl06gc=; b=SA7vz7gX9gcCrRz8+PsusMv9RTKuMM2jPiY7uyutbLZOlGnAgslvFCHasNuJ8rKbw4 590/ASlUpKjYRLsNyhSPHyNT2D/bC19PBYU8ptPs+VnWo0wO43c+yQKtzj98S8AcSYTI ivRT2sHiciokN/Tt0Eu6TX/sc969HU3WuHKw9HnnumeWD/iX8hmna6JU+m1Vmn3wWeNA FWrYHXsNfLpkvlcU6KSMVTV5jls98Q1IMtnyrBydxkTIqiBlWWBHDKCH59wGsp61uaat IHv+UjiHZ75dkX4XFoEkD0LmVDPbxNNdJFKxFtpIiZcMRVhrq6efjjp40NKPZHm+XAxY eZIw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kc+1WvUsfd6slTs5uMpqbqCHYMTIOh2KOoQIko7TB46+GooM1EFqMpUhKJAI3VVg== X-Received: by 10.223.132.37 with SMTP id 34mr9481556wrf.45.1488717787061; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 04:43:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (189.182.7.51.dyn.plus.net. [51.7.182.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 186sm10691034wmw.24.2017.03.05.04.43.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 05 Mar 2017 04:43:06 -0800 (PST) To: Dave Taht , Jonathan Morton Cc: Cake List References: <752ad487-0826-ba92-6bbf-a46d031a10ee@gmail.com> <95D56BA5-0C5E-4D2E-B28F-A8C957B5F65D@gmail.com> From: Andy Furniss Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 12:43:04 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Cake] low bandwidth default params best effort vs voice latency. X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 12:43:08 -0000 Dave Taht wrote: > One thing the original sqm-scripts did (with fq_codel) was explicitly > deprioritize ping with a filter. > > I had written in my original "wondershaper must die" rant how stupid > it was to prioritize ping upwards to "impress your friends" - as that > was the case in many, many a wshaper implementation I'd seen. > > I only just now noticed that rant does not have the images inline. > "Oh, man, ping's prioritized:" > > https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/attachments/131229050304_wshaper-800-220.svg > > As for explicit depriorization, well, I took a lot of flack from some > ietfers about lowering it below best effort, and I felt the additional > classification needed was excessive for cake, directly. Some OSes > already do mark it with a background class. I still think it's a good > idea as it makes ping floods against (for example) your entire 10. > network (which happened to me under worm attack once) - vanish. Yea, fair point, but in this case it's just a simulation tool as I don't know how to get delay times from a udp stream. I still think cs4 should go to voice on diffserv3 as it does on diffserv4. Another observation with flent udp_flood, I notice that flent-london.bufferbloat.net is tcp only, is this intended? The test still works, despite the port unreachables coming back, just no bandwidth reading.