From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC47B21F445; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 18:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.9.160.211] (mul.isi.edu [128.9.160.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t6712C1f025408 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 6 Jul 2015 18:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <559B2513.3020909@isi.edu> Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:02:11 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net, cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: touch@isi.edu Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] failing to find the "declared victory" in a current wifi router 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, 07 Jul 2015 01:02:53 -0000 Hi, all, I'm posting because of my recent frustration with the claim that bufferbloat solutions have been "pushed up into the OpenWRT and commercial routers. I spent the bulk of last weekend trying to find a COTS WIFI router that supported OpenWRT with bufferbloat (SQM) extensions. I tried a Linksys WRT1200AC, and here's what I found: - Kaloz's 23-Apr-2015 build installs fine and comes up with a web server (LUCI), but does NOT include SQM - trying to install the SQM packages fails due to a kernel version incompatibility (for a 23-Apr-2015 build?!) - CC-rc2 doesn't have a WRT1200AC build presumably I should have used mvebu-armada-385-linksys-caiman, but it's not at all clear - and I'd have to install LUCI and/or reinstall factory firmware from the command line, and none of that is all that clear, esp. a recovery route that doesn't involve voiding warranty to wire in a serial port Given the "declared victory" (http://www.bufferbloat.net/news/53), perhaps someone one one of these lists can explain why there's no clear information on a current device that supports a current build that actually supports these fixes? I.e., if you were trying to make this obscure, you're doing a very good job. FWIW. Joe