From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <redag2@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-we0-x231.google.com (mail-we0-x231.google.com
	[IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::231])
	(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 7FA5121F4FF
	for <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>;
	Sat, 24 May 2014 07:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id x48so5863577wes.8
	for <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>;
	Sat, 24 May 2014 07:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type;
	bh=tCEoC8sMMxNVEWebsaKhJu9Ad6vunL0lKj4OQ+jG/AE=;
	b=YtHfvcmAKqJiCs5E5JKBf+umFpiMbvuW4VLA9To9t1vLoXWBrn6uLI6UgPRzwvWrro
	N3g+LvNwjmMww6SOIYRbm2aIhk6iFlWZYfXRmLvUt6O8B2BWLu2UNDPwrp23wc7QPVzf
	RnXokLp8ATueIDZvcIUZF6TAWmS1yx+ERMcm8KTFYajqcg4rUQq0+W21wWtGdCZp+kUY
	NKP2koiNctJyBv/Vx3KYi0njb0mPGkRpGyIYzlDwNeyXT5GwCx9K52cFtocNgsfKvGJC
	X2R8G46eaf1SRVAy0Zc+1/hzaDLgh9TRG7gCFLUX8bDKVF0+D8TlgCjIc41WfQqw2xq3
	Uu+Q==
X-Received: by 10.180.97.10 with SMTP id dw10mr11552675wib.38.1400940193701;
	Sat, 24 May 2014 07:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.217.55.1 with HTTP; Sat, 24 May 2014 07:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "R." <redag2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACj-SW2xRzNJa_c7CyOGzY-Yvun7UjNyp0W0aeF5DjO_Guu=ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:16:23 -0700
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Ideas on how to simplify and popularize
 bufferbloat control for consideration.
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
	<cerowrt-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/cerowrt-devel>,
	<mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel>,
	<mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 14:03:18 -0000
X-Original-Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 10:02:53 -0400
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 14:03:18 -0000

>> I should point out that another issue with deploying fq_codel widely is that it requires an accurate measurement (currently) of the providers bandwidth.

Pardon my noobiness, but is there a technical obstacle that prevents
the creation of a user-triggered function on the router side that
measures the provider's bandwidth?

Function, when (luci-gui?) triggered, would:

1. Ensure that internet connectivity is present.
2. Disconnect all clients.
3. Engage in DL and UL on a dedicated web server, measure stats and
straight up use them in fq_codel -- or suggest them in appropriate
QoS-gui user-boxes.

Further, this function could be auto-scheduled or made enabled on
router boot up.

I must be missing something important which prevents this. What is it?