'It’s looking at MACs all right, but not the way you suggest. It’s just
classifying certain vendor IDs as “voice” by default, and leaving the rest
at “best effort”.'

That's what I meant to imply, using the vendor I'd of the mac to separate
the traffic, reusing the "voice" QoS handling.

-Aaron
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 13:57 Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On 4 Jan, 2017, at 23:45, Aaron Wood <woody77@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "but it has revealed that the WRT32X is designed to automatically detect
> computers using the Killer-line of network adapters, indicating it's
> probably a gaming-focused PC from a company like Alienware, MSI, or Razer
> that requires priority access to the home's internet. It does the same
> thing for an Xbox as well, if console gaming is more your thing.”
>
> In other words, they’re aware of the (user level) problem, but they still
> don’t really “get it” at a technical solution level.  And they call it
> “secret sauce” and hide the details, because they don’t want competitors to
> copy them.
>
> > Or it's looking at the mac ids of the devices, and queuing them
> separately, with higher priority, but throttled to a percentage of overall
> bandwidth.  Much like the Cisco recommendations for voip traffic using EF.
>
> It’s looking at MACs all right, but not the way you suggest.  It’s just
> classifying certain vendor IDs as “voice” by default, and leaving the rest
> at “best effort”.
>
> It would however be very interesting to see whether we can measure the
> differences between this approach and the ath9k work - purely to illuminate
> whether the proprietary or open-source approaches are more effective in
> practice.
>
>  - Jonathan Morton
>
>