From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (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 47C2C21F2E6 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f46.google.com with SMTP id h136so1331470oig.5 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:28:39 -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=UGyR+R77zw9IEG3xLVxA18Ooo/0moHHWpv/Ocjh1dzE=; b=olHoZ99TwKQvAoHBY+QsbSdKAY7KZoPcDj20T0H1Qdu2SMlHKv1E+Azw+rrfwPuiXT gs1/dALxOZoSnNnbjRegtFft1srS4bDHI522cKzBlnO5dptzGByMk4KAUaeI+qBp/Efy TQhQTMh8gO5whPZhqG3n8B3ThZRgwtVy5C65MyNBYP1P6gr3QiOX85oqCuwXBHQn/mNB JLoAkFfau91VyL0tbAiyw3yykWWofwqBgcRY39U0sPb3CRo2P2ERYNW389dvQDcb7QL2 g6+IUM7OwzOf/yMngo3WALWPowTPyPMQ+eWt9l3jl6TwUekMLXsrbefF54xB7NtMo3cd Boew== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.45.207 with SMTP id t198mr836868oit.134.1413394119574; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.227.211 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:28:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F0AE2A6-47C1-4733-9FD0-4D654E6E69BF@gmx.de> References: <1895D16A-1B0F-48C7-B4B5-6FC84CA92F43@gmx.de> <543E624C.8070304@etorok.net> <4F0AE2A6-47C1-4733-9FD0-4D654E6E69BF@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:28:39 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Sebastian Moeller Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] SQM and PPPoE, more questions than answers... 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, 15 Oct 2014 17:29:09 -0000 hmm. The pppoe LLC packets are sparse and should already be optimized by fq_codel, but I guess I'll go look at the construction of those headers. Perhaps they need to be decoded better in the flow_dissector code? I also made some comments re the recent openwrt pull request. https://github.com/dtaht/ceropackages-3.10/commit/b9e3bafdabb3c5aa47f8f63ea= e2ecfe34c361855 SQM need not require the advanced qdiscs package, if it checks for availability of the other qdiscs, and even then nobody's proposed putting the new nfq_codel stuff into openwrt - as it's still rather inadaquately tested, and it's my hope that cake simplifies matters significantly when it's baked. I already have patches for sqm for it, but it's just not baked enough... Also I think exploring policing at higher ingres bandwidths is warrented... On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > Hi Edwin, > > > On Oct 15, 2014, at 14:02 , T=C3=B6r=C3=B6k Edwin wrote: > >> On 10/15/2014 03:03 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >>> I guess it is back to the drawing board to figure out how to speed= up the classification=E2=80=A6 and then revisit the PPPoE question again= =E2=80=A6 >> >> FWIW I had to add this to /etc/config/network (done via luci actually): >> option keepalive '500 30' >> >> Otherwise it uses these default values from /etc/ppp/options, and then I= hit: https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/7793: >> lcp-echo-failure 5 >> lcp-echo-interval 1 >> >> The symptomps are that if I start a large download after half a minute o= r so pppd complains that it didn't receive reply to 5 LCP echo packets and = disconnects/reconnects. > > I have not yet seen these in the logs, but I will keep my eyes op= en. > >> Sounds like the LCP echo/reply packets should get prioritized, but I don= 't know if it is my router that is dropping them or my ISP. > > I think that is something we should be able to teach SQM (as long= as the shaper is running on the lower ethernet interface and not the pppoe= interface). > >> >> When you tested PPPoE did you notice pppd dropping the connection and re= starting, cause that would affect the timings for sure=E2=80=A6 > > Nope, what I see is simply more variance in bandwidth and latency= numbers and a less step slope on a right shifted ICMP CDF=E2=80=A6 I assum= e that the disconnect reconnects should show up as periods without any data= transfer=E2=80=A6. > > Mmmh, I will try to put the PPP service packets into the highest priority= class and see whether that changes things, as well as testing your PPP opt= ions. > > Thanks for your help > > Sebastian > >> >> Best regards, >> --Edwin >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talks