From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C7ED3CB80 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:54:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id u188so190441356wmu.1 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 07:54:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=lxxquMLZuxRJaFqNbwQSyQIQN6WQ8bAbGgCIKRwrjRA=; b=srIyYf+M0mmQDyleg7v8HyoJukMei1LclCuz9Q1IdbtSS0w+CaDCtioWrYZwYhVIWY p1OZpPTyr7zOjBqHql9ZWenx30cOX2hb0FKpUf5mT6XG70dfjbrGcQB6Q0ag379+HgzR 7oymmoqqX7abpyeheGXy6myRvancY9XioALZfFYgvvAK+S4oe1Qcn6dMge5xq+cX6SlT DCZ9mRh/a5mh0ahrmcazjNFEsOQWN1Z5kJHdtal3cDUjun1VMsGlybymACNPmrjyJTyg Ep/JFObwhzJN8jZpSDCz+Ak5ePVwTPux6ni1Uv8JO2g+PKqm1yeWQ6tEeWZxkEoTxROK uY6w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=lxxquMLZuxRJaFqNbwQSyQIQN6WQ8bAbGgCIKRwrjRA=; b=PrbELpdXdoY4EkSpORzn8jLqbkXo/K9VtgMVtSfLEYF8nxTej5YH/rziHQ3fxXaNcM +5LAzvSnEsj4/mwUCJHx9JEVJ3HA+eVT4uWNCLcBN5ympeEIZvdnl3nv3TcfjpmBG+yF Z9kT5t5U0N8zP9WqrkQkkqJt2sJwo1+MgLsfAofuDow8xc1ZyRKoNGHIRRnFToeHoeQt k4Jn7ecfMdnF5vKZ3QSjhUcf8TfH2TMOrKQvmIP1jKExLGHP5XWd9Ptvze2KC+C2Dh3w mKIX5GVz6zsJK2vB1uSpeqgmcCO8bm9yqLb86aZe26V2b2fykbfK6g0NiIAdAyYt59Dy 5umA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQOzgMoDFreTplp1k76/0thdvRjiWKtygHwbAvAF/WutprlsR/S+PonNWuFiB33hA== X-Received: by 10.28.5.213 with SMTP id 204mr4726562wmf.20.1453305294129; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 07:54:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.9.243] (host-92-31-2-189.as13285.net. [92.31.2.189]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id e9sm33814008wjp.18.2016.01.20.07.54.53 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 07:54:53 -0800 (PST) References: <1453302261.02626297@apps.rackspace.com> To: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" From: Alan Jenkins Message-ID: <569FADCC.4000702@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:54:52 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1453302261.02626297@apps.rackspace.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020209030807040704030800" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Salter's written a nice article, but missed bufferbloat all the improvements to Linux in CeroWRT 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: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:54:56 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020209030807040704030800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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...). --------------020209030807040704030800 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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...).
--------------020209030807040704030800--