From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-x236.google.com (mail-qc0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF04B21F19C for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 10:16:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id e16so16178636qcx.13 for ; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:16:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:message-id:date :to:mime-version; bh=HhHDKJo80gkXmTAi3lOv06XBKk2dfWRInX7JQgsFVOI=; b=LLSaMdPgQHKlOeKcyYE6tT/0ymEUQ1dimZUR7tK/Xx8KYV7epT1JaXiKK5mdkpX0pT 16+gvx9h6zKbhfEy3WvimUqMFFjN4xmWpT/yLkmAruMamthpz/Hgv7UD8/jfsxB+Lh+M 1HLAVJNZy/kQZWiVOJRfNdGWmVvPkBWlfjrov5h+GS933ondRN3ddAaDkpn07ko6yAte 85/l/l6dUrzXQDFh+Qu/OLMzm2mr4yVieAqrXejUQt6p4f3uEQ8qG1IEV/zl+9p6w+ZG hLS042OZbEEeHvDSxpAgWPwphLxSehMaWKJBxp6FWW/QXZRadQtIPZzzXP37/xKWbxb8 4edw== X-Received: by 10.49.1.35 with SMTP id 3mr164333790qej.43.1388859400680; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:16:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from richs-mbp-2018.home.lan (pool-72-87-59-156.ptldme.east.myfairpoint.net. [72.87.59.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 11sm85824074qei.12.2014.01.04.10.16.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:16:39 -0800 (PST) From: Rich Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <01558084-B7D8-448A-A4ED-CE36D18AAA97@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 13:16:37 -0500 To: cerowrt-devel Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] SQM Question #5: Link Layer Adaptation Overheads X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 18:17:03 -0000 QUESTION #5: I still don=92t have any great answers for the Link Layer = Adaptation overhead descriptions and recommendations. In an earlier = message, (see = https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/2013-December/001914= .html and following messages), Fred Stratton described the overheads = carried by various options, and Sebastian Moeller also gave some useful = advice. After looking at the options, I despair of giving people a clear = recommendation that would be optimal for their equipment. Consequently, = I believe the best we can do is come up with =93good enough=94 = recommendations that are not wrong, and still give decent performance. =20= In this spirit, I have changed Draft #3 of the =93Setting up SQM=94 page = to reflect this understanding. See = http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_CeroWr= t_310 ADSL/ATM link: Choose =93ADSL/ATM", and set Per Packet Overhead = to 40 VDSL2 link: Choose =93VDSL=94, and set Per Packet Overhead to 8 Other kind of link (e.g., Cable, Fiber, Ethernet, other not = listed): Choose =93None (default)=94, and set Per Packet Overhead to 0 NB: I have changed the first menu choice to =93ADSL/ATM=94 and the = second to =93VDSL=94 in the description. I would ask that we change to = GUI to reflect those names as well. This makes it far easier/less = confusing to talk about the options.=20 As always, I welcome help in setting out clear recommendations that work = well for the vast majority of people who try CeroWrt. Thanks. Rich=