From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F132B21FBD2 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 04:56:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from u-088-d141.biologie.uni-tuebingen.de ([134.2.88.141]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MS0c2-1ZcI8X2ST4-00TGrO; Wed, 01 Jul 2015 13:56:03 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 13:55:57 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <04331509-F163-4184-90B4-8589073AFD62@gmx.de> <09BA156C-460D-4794-A082-33E805F3D6FD@gmx.de> <5436B48C-0803-46DA-B355-14E917A5BB37@gmx.de> <4E002218-174D-44F9-91A0-C7F34B9E83C7@gmx.de> <87pp4eomfx.fsf@alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk> <1435585587.97486240@apps.rackspace.com> <1435681242.435511455@apps.rackspace.com> To: Mikael Abrahamsson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:qxw3sXPkF0ZW+NuNpewnlB0c043Cez1viWW3UmTc845teNrdGYK Bk7ujmPozU/MLi+CCPpe8oiDTH0vKuOEaXtVu6dctrr4xy0fxiiO0Vku2n+X7aRwtTbizKv wcQrCE9OQGU825qpn1tQ0QIdymqji2QFTgHMjoJfuN587b/bAHB8myC84NdBQkNDQ4xWu8T w2+Ah7iirZHY51onGBISA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:8C2Jn516hBE=:2md7brBbGuwiQGKvLRGLpM ElLXCtT62JGL4bveNEaGo4uFm6Lq6cmDAXGoGtIDsgKK9Lzgu/uw2gV+u5EiE11an3UJU3mSP kYIbQRaKaJ7eiM+Bj4/bmE589DPbnpKqI5xAt259UlUBhNXZF0CvMt1C1tR4dx2Z1aWk9vZbr Aa7T0W0KtElbSvASRAggirXVSq2dQ1XJe+Me4KS8bfj8F2Av5PjU7m1cC6PJGoSNVzebL1RwL 3iFhosMLwRc9Zc+nHHhRmSP+EedP+tYvmi/XluuMKfydoKM0zQdwPJNqyWv8gvYsuykb8LLMX Xkg/Jz2xC9abMHm2e5xG+lvWQrCOih8COiesW/ki8iUKJg3vtfsfQ1yw54z1LEMykxFrSDGUO cjuZyN7pGKrL7RADNuI+zvAdeVPOIDKq/FIRV5KML/5aekXm6IzT6RqIkrVTnpznOsibMq2+h eEDZHiL/azpG0BBvHqEL6XHtx/RQ2QI4VuY+hw+glwC36G/YsbuFgujPETyrAO7nuBj1nqXU0 69Is8SSq6/mcD/npNYsiA0MWcPeb5R+PiKQZZcXkscFPlLCVZw2AETXa7RyUNu5H1/8Wt6/xO q7Q9gA8FGtd35FKr8F4mULXUmmhJCLUFxed9+n40qh200hDmvBzmJNpZPGYL8XV2RAHfDTOOB 48gfvT2vI9HDSuCUSDqv04ePs1+Lpm82tWuuPjexe8ZpGjNj5Z4YMEBdP47Qb2Zj5h+s= Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Build instructions for regular OpenWRT with Ceropackages 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: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 11:56:49 -0000 On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:32 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, David Lang wrote: >=20 >> not true, the switch doesn't give any way for traffic to get from one = vlan to the other one, so if you have gig-e connections on both sides, = the traffic going from one to the other will have to go through the soc, = so if there is more than 1Gb of traffic in either direction the = interface will be saturated. >=20 > I don't see how it can be. If =93saturated=94 means running at line rate, then I agree with = David. > The switch has a 4 externally facing ports, these all go to a single = SoC port that is GigE, so the SoC cannot ingest more than 1G of traffic = from the 4 LAN ports. But this is not SoC specific, no? If the router only had two = ethernet ports and the LAN aggregation would happen at a dedicated = switch between the clients and the router=92s lan port the situation = would be the same? > The L2 switch chip will do the egress dropping from LAN ports->SoC = ports, so there is no AQM there. Ingress/egress are always relative to something I guess. You can = put AQM on any of the two SoC ports (or both) but that will not affect = how the switch copes with overloads, unless the switch grows AQM (as = Dave mentioned in earlier threads). I would hope that the LAN=92s short = RTTs and high bandwidth should make this bearable. >=20 >> The problem is if you have a slower connection, the bottleneck is in = the switch not the soc. you may be able to set the soc-switch interface = to 100Mb (make sure you have access through another interface in case = you cut yourself off) and that would make the soc see the queue = directly. >=20 > That is my point. There is no way by doing traffic LAN<->WAN to get = egress congestion on the SoC ports, and it's on the SOC ports we can do = AQM. Unless you reduce the egress rate to below the ingress rate. = This really is why we need the soft shapers at all, otherwise the = buffering moves from where we have control back into the = DSLAMs/CMTSs/BRASs and CPE. >=20 > The SoC ports is gigabit ethernet only, no 10/100 available according = to ethtool. >=20 > So the only way to generate congestion egress on the WAN SOC port is = to add traffic locally from the SoC (iperf3 for instance), or adding = traffic from Wifi. Well, that os shaping the other direction, so that more data can = enter the router than leave. It is all a balancing game in the end=85 Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > --=20 > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel