From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) (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 CCE7D21F314 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id d1so5298306wiv.12 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:09:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DaaGjFjKsvRIqInLntYjgPRUTjkd6WgIBd79HuIzbdo=; b=B5VF3/zmht8Ae0MOxzmrMtf6XXz5a7d6M4KBXtS2xGUuiveq+hMEh1Du2ybug1uRNX qCJdkSFj6tQ8D9xo9Pk5rdrkPI7Cgw+9gbGSK17ifY7LmuGNYx1vhxWfVgr8G5HVf3pE F29KkFUhhT+j+SD2lCZhctBjWm9Ar4NsI9bXqs4VkX8lK4Q8VDCgv2rXETzhlel9D6ZX sw7Ua6kU6NBD7pbvkfvvLkDRZz41ofBNo4MnD1nw3HwAwZZ2GqjDZesE2ozlytEAIp4H C9vR6wpHGzXgPmdziYVjveUfHn6Lrjvh4YIkpKxjKHR8IcLaSPVI837nmgkWGu9zGW1h jlfA== X-Received: by 10.180.97.101 with SMTP id dz5mr23292545wib.52.1411484997937; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (27.24.189.80.dyn.plus.net. [80.189.24.27]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id mz16sm2601552wic.13.2014.09.23.08.09.57 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54218D48.1020906@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:10:00 +0100 From: Andy Furniss User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sebastian Moeller , Alan Goodman References: <541C9527.1070105@yescomputersolutions.com> <541DA8B5.70701@gmail.com> <6DF5DFA0-D88E-470E-ACB6-37703EA964E7@gmx.de> <54201F8B.70408@yescomputersolutions.com> <3136C05A-8069-4F04-B352-69A2BF3578FC@gmx.de> <5420AAA1.70203@yescomputersolutions.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "lartc@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Correctly calculating overheads on unknown connections 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: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:10:30 -0000 Sebastian Moeller wrote: > I would just go and account for all overheads I could deduce, so I > would guess: 8 bytes PPPoE, 4 byte VLAN tags, 14 bytes ethernet > header (note for tc’s stab method one needs to include the ethernet > headers in the specified overhead in spite of the man page) I don't think the man page is wrong - it includes eth in the pppoe example. There is a difference between shaping on ppp and shaping on eth which needs to be and is noted. FWIW I tried a few pings on my VDSL2 and don't think I'll be any use for results. I do get an increase with larger packets but it's more than it should be :-(. The trouble is that my ISP does DPI/Ellacoya Qos for my ingress and I guess this affects things a bit too much for sub milisecond accuracy needed on a 20/80 line. At least I don't have to bother so much about ingress shaping (not that I would @80mbit so much anyway). Ping and game traffic comes in tos marked 0x0a and gets prio on their egress which is set slightly lower than my sync profile speed. Additionally it's probably not the best time to test as they had a recent outage which caused in-balance on their gateways which seems to still persist.