Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: wndr3800 replacement

[Aaron Wood <woody77@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1755 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> > Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> >     > I also think that it'll be very hard to find a box that is decently
> >     > priced
> >     > that also will do gig speeds *and* will do AQM, since most home
> >     > gateways that
> >
> > So, I'm struggling to get a $700 Cisco (not Linksys) SOHO switch to
> forward
> > packets at GbE across my home LAN.   Gigabit ethernet in the home is
> actually
> > a reality.... and having a Gigabit LAN hit a 11Mb/s (half-duplex!)
> 802.11b
> > wireless means that in many homes, we actually need a box that satisfies
> > both.
>

Right, but in that instance, the flow-rates are only 802.11 rates, and a
wndr can keep up with that.  It's the sqm on the uplink/wan side that needs
the processing power.  Or, it's time to do what Dave has mentioned and
rewrite to get a faster implementation than htb.


> > My vote would be to double the price from $80 to $250, and set that as
> the
> > new base for cerowrt work.  If it can't forward more than 2-3 GbE links,
> > that is just fine.  I don't expect 24-ports of GbE.
> > (I was expecting that cisco switch to do that... sadly no lost packets
> > on a $100 unmanaged FE switch...)
>
>  I started looking at the edgerouter LTE and related boxes again.
>
> Does anyone else have one?
>
> They have a new release based on 3.4 out; backporting fq_codel might work.
>
> I don't have any numbers on it's performance however, and it does look like
> updating it to 3.10 would be good idea.
>

Nice looking platform.

Cavium Octeon?  Looks like it's all in software, and not in offload modules?

-Aaron

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2586 bytes --]