From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-x22e.google.com (mail-qa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::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 5568B21F206 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 05:42:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id f11so4767981qae.19 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 05:42:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=uIrtiiVT3cQHFaeIkN23i4Y7rdV5AUlEVMx6/LHkz3U=; b=dVrSK3PFF2HrETvv8U8oJ6yZ7TxdKQ6N1NcOKjVojfAu8ILe0UEyzSRhLALEamYK2h 0kdlYMhmyOzclNrBZzHnmninI/qO4YQuSQnTylEik8RBP2k3vE7o1enp7B0xrpaIMhco 2QZrPcCvYAlOaQViR6kUD1NWf10Wf7ipFE3IVytz1aFoH3TEECyrWLVfoIU2j0y3qTUD jDVV+EEOcGohuyMfW3r6WZIcoMKhgC9N0zW+JLOMx0yc/UZ9GNuscfTP7xdppIAHUFtA ljbsMFGstjAKD1lG6ZD44G0SVlFUK2zLexioK/Gr9blG33rY5EZtpg9HwkiuNehM7oo3 lsIQ== X-Received: by 10.224.12.69 with SMTP id w5mr2977701qaw.76.1387460554654; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 05:42:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:470:8a63:3:ad36:870b:a3e7:ec72? ([2001:470:8a63:3:ad36:870b:a3e7:ec72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id lc1sm11042561qeb.5.2013.12.19.05.42.33 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Dec 2013 05:42:34 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\)) From: Rich Brown In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:42:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <34E77F64-739C-49E4-B8A4-6ABBEAE4174B@gmail.com> <8DB84101-C942-49C4-99F0-6C9319961297@gmail.com> <22176178-A50F-48F2-A3A1-D3853764AD0E@gmail.com> <0E267F91-3CC8-48F4-92C0-AD8BACA98FCC@gmail.com> <1FA2FD44-D715-4B50-BB5A-BAF61070970B@gmx.de> <31B5B61B-4E58-4C5E-8F33-710CCE0918F4@gmail.com> To: Sebastian Moeller X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822) Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] CeroWrt 3.10 AQM page 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: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:42:36 -0000 Hi Sebastian and Fred, [I=92m changing the subject line of this thread=85] Great comments. I knew my glib assertions and fuzzy explanations would = bring out cogent thoughts. I=92ll give the rest of the list a chance to = peruse the draft page and then work on it tonight.=20 = http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_CeroWr= t_310 Rich On Dec 19, 2013, at 5:49 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > Hi Rich, >=20 >=20 > On Dec 19, 2013, at 05:12 , Rich Brown = wrote: >=20 >> Hi Sebastian, >>=20 >>>> Perhaps we could extend the Interface configuration page to add a = =93Link uses DSL/ADSL:=94 checkbox right below the Protocol dropdown. = Default would be off, but when customers go to the GE00 interface to = enter their PPPoE/PPPoATM/ISP credentials, they=92d see this additional = checkbox. Checking it would feed that info to the AQM tab. (And perhaps = there could be a link there either to the AQM tab, or to the wiki for = more information.) >>>=20 >>> I am happy to include a link to a wiki, but I guess we first = need a wiki page :)=20 >>=20 >> Is this a challenge? Well, I accept! :-) >>=20 >> = http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_CeroWr= t_310 is a draft. I recycled the images from a previous message and = wrote the least amount that I could that is likely to be true. >=20 > This is great, thanks a lot. I have made a few changes to the = GUI yesterday, which hopefully improve the usability, so if the new GUI = passes muster with the cerowrt crowd, the screenshots will need to = change as you note on top. >=20 >>=20 >> Please send me comments (or edit the page directly, if you have = permissions.) >=20 > I do not have edit permissions, so I just comments here. >=20 > Basic settings: > Why 85% as starting point? And can we give instructions how to = measure "degradation in performance", so that non-technical users have a = chance to actually optimize their own system? >=20 > Queueing Discipline: > Maybe we can add a link to the mail list page = (https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel)? > Also can we note that it is recommended to turn ECN off for the = egress, as we handle packets before the bottleneck and dropping packets = actually allows us to send other more urgent packets , while on ingress = it is recommended to turn ECN on, as the packets have cleared the = bottleneck already, and hence dropping has no bandwidth advantage = anymore. Both dropping and ECN should have the same effect on TCP = adaptation to the path capacity. >=20 > Link Layer Adaptation: > I think the first question is: Do I have an ATM carrier between = your modem and your ISP's DSLAM? This typically is true for all ADSL = variants. > The second question is: Do I have overhead on the link outside = of Ethernet framing? This typically is true for users of PPPoE and = PPPoATM and even Bridging I think. >=20 > If the answer to any of these questions is yes, one needs to = activate the link layer adaptations.=20 > In case of pure overhead select ethernet, in case of ADSL select = ATM. > Fill in the per packet overhead in byte (see: = http://ace-host.stuart.id.au/russell/files/tc/tc-atm/, = http://web.archive.org/web/20100527024520/http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/ = and http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2684.html). If the overhead truly is = zero and no ATM carrier is used, then select "none" for link layer = adaptation. (I changed this page, so the tc_stab htb_private selection = is under advanced options, and there is a selection of "none", = "ethernet", and "none" in the first drop down box, "none" disables the = link layer adaptation. Also the drop down box contains some information = which selection is relevant for which cases). >=20 > What=92s going on here? Why do I need this?: > I think we should mention that only with the proper link layer = selected and the overhead specified cerowrt is able to assess how large = each packet is on the link to the ISP, and only then the shaping is = deterministic. (For ATM users without the adaptations the shaper is = stochastically too optimistic about the link capacity (which is too say = the shaper is too optimistic about the effective packet sizes)). >=20 > Best Regards > Sebastian >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Thanks. >>=20 >> Rich >=20