From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 D903021F283; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 00:12:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 97BB5A3; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:12:02 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1425456722; bh=mvJF0I+nnRC4eGmDL+Otjklpg+JVvuk6EG5rfOpoXgA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=gI+UonJwpr9aFdGVSE9stG9kokKPI70aBjT+RBrjbzT3/ac7Bn2Y9IiM0VTIAoKYd clKfdAVTRPzL2QPfhw0E7n0hNpVO9PeMuGjwbizp0TYTFlF1eexoXamF3HhbqwMCKP oiPMKrB5so1iTvybInsoYPNOJuM2Hr1cjdcnaUlo= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91014A2; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:12:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:12:02 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Wes Felter , "aqm@ietf.org" , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" 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, 04 Mar 2015 08:12:35 -0000 On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > I note that there are conflicting definitions of CS1 (background). > Comcast, re-marks about 90% I see to CS1 from whatever it was > originally, in the hope that it is treated as background. The ancient > firmware in commercial home routers *prioritizes* CS1 on etheret and > *deprioritizes it* on wifi, into the 802.11e background queue, when > enabled. CeroWrt tries to cons This is the default I have seen in quite a few 4 queue L2 devices, I believe it comes from IEEE recommendations: https://community.extremenetworks.com/extreme/topics/default_802_1p_priority_to_transmit_queue_mapping Product 802.1p Priority/CoS Transmit Queue Matrix N; non-Policy Priority, 'show port priority-queue' -4 or 8 queues- 0 4&8 Qs-> 1 Fast Ethernet ports 1 0 2 0 3 1 4 2 5 2 6 3 7 3 Since a lot of products will mark IP PREC part of TOS directly into .1p bits, this means CS0 and CS3 goes into higher priority queues compared to CS1 and CS2. http://www.hp.com/rnd/device_help/help/hpwnd/webhelp/HPJ4121A/qos_priority_map.html seems to indicate HP does the same. http://alliedtelesis.com/manuals/GS900M_Series_Web_Browser_User_Guide_revA/aw1001299.html says the same. However, I find devices that do differently by default as you have already discovered. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se