From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x22c.google.com (mail-ob0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B745B21F36F for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obew15 with SMTP id w15so145185669obe.1 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 21:47:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1kTLvnaB7rqouEclQzr56tE+0PlUMAJTUl+b8hWepsQ=; b=GxJkYOVBNIkQ+VWBE4uDn0kAuuYD8yZQsLF+x5eBisctMn0j+SS61hZxpL4b6DNRev KiV/N6Ca2tnNLMcbiqThS+CqUnrIV3mQUUy/i5u+frUtHta7A+3QyqaKiIPAeeX+cT60 9p391I4egqTCUPCUE18kPUjirVSXrtenKqbSe92leEOgWRB/gr33GMHFWeSqFW/cYoJb /Ga+g0NBw+mZ/ZarNBapiA+qhD17Rg8IxifHAnapq7RF4wJEDsZaEMyz4JlbplsNd5c0 LVgGLneroTxwNfgA9igqyn6iUQ3xuV4px9Mg4V4IrhirkGsmelvBlwAvht+iIUBfMCEu ovbg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.35.71 with SMTP id f7mr26163943oej.24.1433306878374; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 21:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.105.129 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:47:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5566BD00.2010205@openwrt.org> References: <5566BD00.2010205@openwrt.org> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:47:58 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Steven Barth Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Is ingress QoS worth the pain? 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, 03 Jun 2015 04:48:28 -0000 Please note our mail server is failing and I am pulling together the resources and time to replace it. (if anyone has a good antispam setup and some time, that would be nice) It is sorting through an enormous backlog now. On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Steven Barth wrote: > Hi everyone, > > again a bit of a basic question, but what are the advantages of doing > ingress shaping in SQM? > > To me it wastes a lot of CPU cycles (decreases forwarding performance) > and you can't really "unsend" any packets from the ISP. What I mean is > in 99% of cases your internal forwarding capacity is usually (much?) > bigger than what the ISP sends to at any rate. Do you want hundreds of ms, or even seconds, induced latency on your link because your ISP massively overbuffers at their end on their shaper? "Here ya go! 100Mbits of bandwidth... but when you use it, stop playing your game, 'cause you are going to get fragged!" http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/disabling-shaping-in-one-direction-= with.html > What do I miss here? Some effects on TCP rate-limiting? yep. The ideal answer is for the ISP gear to have a shaper that works well at all speeds for their customers. > > > Cheers, > > Steven > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast