From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-x236.google.com (mail-la0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::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 1F42E21F1E6 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 18:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lagg8 with SMTP id g8so123187101lag.1 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 18:34:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/Mg1PXDJfWqjdwFv7mLJbFaj4Q9Jw8UOYheiGHChLUA=; b=ROOrchexqRbu0xTpNNtsL51Qw5aAvqm4xI3KlkUfESFAkvJmUJfYaE9cxBouSXnVqS IxHPc/DaB60E7Jd2tXNGnLTvrD8xj3k1HjwKiWP6wo7ZHL7r9HFZ6VNE8/XFEaX3FT3K 2QYijlrZIBfaR8O5rsvFjN2E/XUN8n9uO9VNuLYTrBjlQSqxqBP3mlVKm0QnwSXqvBdO 1fq5bt1jHfs4v9Iw7M2+HsqZjcIlNfI6wjiPjxhVD15ZW6MYShaKB2z3ggxV2NV/BJy8 imvAWO8uONLO3GDIB0BKfOtUA7oMXjrQVN5+NjoG7W2kPZPGa8eLUmjQLuRRsqh06S4D Qrwg== X-Received: by 10.152.5.194 with SMTP id u2mr82089251lau.88.1427074491620; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 18:34:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bass.home.chromatix.fi (37-136-12-37.rev.dnainternet.fi. [37.136.12.37]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kd7sm2297632lbc.42.2015.03.22.18.34.50 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Mar 2015 18:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 03:34:48 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <08BAF198-87C5-42B8-8899-53F34E47156E@gmail.com> References: To: Dave Taht X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] archer c7 v2, policing, hostapd, test openwrt build 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: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:35:22 -0000 > On 23 Mar, 2015, at 02:24, Dave Taht wrote: >=20 > I have long maintained it was possible to build a better fq_codel-like > policer without doing htb rate shaping, ("bobbie"), and I am tempted > to give it a go in the coming months. I have a hazy picture in my mind, now, of how it could be made to work. A policer doesn=E2=80=99t actually maintain a queue, but it is possible = to calculate when the currently-arriving packet would be scheduled for = sending if a shaped FIFO was present, in much the same way that cake = actually performs such scheduling at the head of a real queue. The = difference between that time and the current time is a virtual sojourn = time which can be fed into the Codel algorithm. Then, when Codel says = to drop a packet, you do so. Because there=E2=80=99s no queue management, timer interrupts nor flow = segregation, the overhead should be significantly lower than an actual = queue. And there=E2=80=99s a reasonable hope that involving Codel will = give better results than either a brick-wall or a token bucket. - Jonathan Morton