From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (unknown [66.167.227.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4A113B2A4 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 01:56:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-laptop.LAN (dlang-laptop.LAN [10.2.0.162]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061D9761DF; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 20:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 20:28:40 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang-laptop To: Alban cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <20190701135251.08defe75@eos> Message-ID: References: <20190701135251.08defe75@eos> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.1 (DEB 209 2017-03-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [Cake] Recommendations for using cake in complex setup (wireguard + vlan + bond) 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: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 05:56:30 -0000 As a general rule, you want to put Cake (or any other sqm system) just before your bottleneck link. That's unlikely to be the LAN links, it's almost always going to be your WAN links. If you have them there for redundancy, not for added bandwidth, I think the right thing to do is to put Cake on the bonded (logical) interface that they share, but set it to a bandwidth that either link can satisfy if the other is down. David Lang