Only in case of shaping the total bandwidth to the ~70Mbps this router can barely do can I see an effect of the dual egress instead of the IFB based ingress shaper. So column 7 (ipv4) and column 8 (ipv6) are larger than columns 9 (ipv4) and 10 (ipv6) showing that dual egress instead of egress and ingress effective upload increases by < 10 Mbps (while download and latency stay unaffected). That is not bad, but also does not look like the IFB is the cost driver in sqm-scripts, or does it? Also as a corollary of the data I would say, my old interpretation that we hit a limit at ~70Mbps combined traffic might not be correct in that ingress and egress might carry slightly different costs, but then thins difference is not going to make a wndr punch way above its weight… Best Regards Sebastian On Mar 23, 2015, at 17:09 , Sebastian Moeller wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > On Mar 23, 2015, at 14:43 , Jonathan Morton wrote: > >> >>> On 23 Mar, 2015, at 08:09, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >>> >>> It obviously degrade local performance of se00 and hence be not a true solution unless one is happy to fully dedicate a box as shaper ;) >> >> Dedicating a box as a router/shaper isn’t so much of a problem, but shaping traffic between wired and wireless - and sharing the incoming WAN bandwidth between them, too - is. outer > > Exactly the sentiment I had, but less terse and actually understandable ;) > >> It’s a valid test, though, for this particular purpose. > > Once I get around to test it, I should b able to share some numbers… > > Best Regards > Sebastian > >> >> - Jonathan Morton >> > > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel