Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Ideas on how to simplify and popularize bufferbloat control for consideration.

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:03 AM,  <dpreed@reed.com> wrote:
> In reality we don't disagree on this:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:19am, "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com> said:
>
>>
>
>> Well, I disagree somewhat. The downstream shaper we use works quite
>> well, until we run out of cpu at 50mbits. Testing on the ubnt edgerouter
>> has had the inbound shaper work up a little past 100mbits. So there is
>> no need (theoretically) to upgrade the big fat head ends if your cpe is
>> powerful enough to do the job. It would be better if the head ends did it,
>> of course....
>>
>
>
>
> There is an advantage for the head-ends doing it, to the extent that each
> edge device has no clarity about what is happening with all the other cpe
> that are sharing that head-end. When there is bloat in the head-end even if
> all cpe's sharing an upward path are shaping themselves to the "up to" speed
> the provider sells, they can go into serious congestion if the head-end
> queues can grow to 1 second or more of sustained queueing delay.  My
> understanding is that head-end queues have more than that.  They certainly
> do in LTE access networks.

Compelling argument! I agree it would be best for the devices that have the
most information about the network to manage themselves better.

It is deeply ironic to me that I'm arguing for an e2e approach on fixing
the problem in the field, with you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle

>
>



-- 
Dave Täht

NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article