From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88BE13B2AE; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:14:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (199-7-157-95.eng.wind.ca [199.7.157.95]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C25CB22086; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:14:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id EFE116CB03; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:14:46 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Jonathan Morton cc: Valent Turkovic , "cerowrt-devel\@lists.bufferbloat.net" , make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net In-reply-to: <6737994D-CE0B-46F5-B55C-A584FF6A8014@gmail.com> References: <6737994D-CE0B-46F5-B55C-A584FF6A8014@gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Jonathan Morton message dated "Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:30:28 +0200." X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:14:46 -0500 Message-ID: <23342.1453133686@dooku.sandelman.ca> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] routers you can throw off the back of a truck X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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, 18 Jan 2016 16:14:51 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jonathan Morton wrote: > I haven=E2=80=99t yet found a robust way to automatically sense link capa= city from > the upstream side. You=E2=80=99ll therefore need to set a conservative s= tatic > value for the uplink capacity. As the maintainer of a PPPoE concentrator, and operator of some networks, I've been considering whether one can estimate the bandwidth using round trip PPP IPCP keep alives. Clearly, if both ends participate in time stamping then it is much better, but I've been wondering if we can do some incremental deployment on one side or the other. Sadly, I mostly just think about this while cycling; I haven't written any code yet. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWnQ91AAoJEKD0KQ7Gj3P2tlQIAK2osMw1gxIZrq2aULAOridN Mg6BX3nYQE0zuMoW0jHzEJ1MWMyjtcQrd6Fdk/xLHzUNPi8Kg1Uu/StdD8+0RRTe zzHvmf3A7zgHZoGOxKIViPrMaUhKWhYMnMV5LJ5HwvUfs426F9xry1xI6UpWbmu8 bb30h0pKg96jx1NCTCEKKuFguTCZLch2vP6cQBunzLueM25XvnS/8eWTBX/qg2UU pk3gqfKcMneW6p3SR9QFyEh41VvHzH0HflVcZJb7HhEwF/9/P/ap3PM8F1tQdQKI 9n8eXn2djmE6qunlXhx1jiTnHn3Qk0sRcGWOGTKSXuJyFZfPyPyoKM+IWcAmEro= =8uHr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--