From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (mail.lang.hm [64.81.33.126]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EC2821F19F for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:34:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id rBI4YWnV030583; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:34:32 -0800 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:34:32 -0800 (PST) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Rich Brown In-Reply-To: <22176178-A50F-48F2-A3A1-D3853764AD0E@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <34E77F64-739C-49E4-B8A4-6ABBEAE4174B@gmail.com> <8DB84101-C942-49C4-99F0-6C9319961297@gmail.com> <22176178-A50F-48F2-A3A1-D3853764AD0E@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/Mixed; BOUNDARY="===============8251186497116768692==" Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] cerowrt-3.10.24-5 dev build released 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, 18 Dec 2013 04:34:41 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --===============8251186497116768692== Content-Type: TEXT/Plain; format=flowed; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Rich Brown wrote: > - From what you’ve said, I don’t have much hope for doing it automagically. > But maybe we can provide clues to help the customer do to the right thing. > Perhaps the first dropdown could be “Link Layer Adjustments (used on DSL or > ATM)” with options for “None/ADSL/SDSL/VDSL over PTM/VDSL over ATM/PPPoATM” > and maybe others. CeroWrt could automatically set the proper link layer > adaptations for each. We could also include a link to the wiki for a flow > chart for setting each of these cases, especially the questions they should > ask their ISP. Let's start with the first question, what is the difference between these as far as what the config should be? forget the GUI or automated settings. If I am configuring a Cerowrt box mmanually, what should I set differently for the different types of configs? What is the impact of getting it wrong? (if it's like VPN overhead where setting the rate just slightly too high results is lots of wasted 'airtime' by setting it too low results is a amall amount of wasted 'airtime' then a low enough value to be reasonalbe everywere is a good default) David Lang --===============8251186497116768692== Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: Content-Description: Content-Disposition: INLINE _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel --===============8251186497116768692==--