Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Salter's written a nice article, but missed bufferbloat all the improvements to Linux in CeroWRT

[Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1042 bytes --]

On 20/01/16 15:04, dpreed@reed.com wrote:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/numbers-dont-lie-its-time-to-build-your-own-router/
>

Definitely a missed opportunity :), many of those nice fast connections 
are unfortunately over-buffered.

I think it's interesting in its own right.  The 10kB x 100 row is 
horrible, and it's not that far-fetched for modern bloated web pages.  A 
new frontier for the modern speed test :).

My reflex was to ask what's actually being measured.  Is it faster with 
IPv6 (no NAT)?  Would the connection tracking overhead still be 
significant?  (I also hear Dave screaming about offloads, but I don't 
think that's why we see (low-power) Ivy Bridge cpu brought down to only 
200mbps of packet forwarding in the last row).

Stateless firewalls should work quite well for TCP, you just drop 
incoming SYN.  It's connection-less UDP that breaks it.  (And often you 
still don't need high-volume connection-less, but you want unreliable 
datagrams and the network wasn't designed with security in mind...).

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1702 bytes --]