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 1856221F5F7 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3E11DA2; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:58:08 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1435694288; bh=b5mB/idWdNtdxIaPdQQsp/qJPvH0XAxFt9Of6lGZApg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=uQ47eoU/vv3e1IpbqPfctAKSPK+SACYjbQNlAlmC+QckAPOj50353gQNViA59WH9G E0nEfeVfv+utDLR+mJin4phgEY/u/OGg5AsSpYd8CJD2Yiqf/f0GakvTx9489g/m5w NPwtOZxK5t/VX3dLTt/9q6Ljy808NXlJ/UKLc8Ks= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39609A1; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:58:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:58:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: dpreed@reed.com In-Reply-To: <1435681242.435511455@apps.rackspace.com> Message-ID: References: <8B853F1C-DE5D-4F3D-88CC-CB8DA2D3E8B1@gmx.de> <04331509-F163-4184-90B4-8589073AFD62@gmx.de> <09BA156C-460D-4794-A082-33E805F3D6FD@gmx.de> <5436B48C-0803-46DA-B355-14E917A5BB37@gmx.de> <4E002218-174D-44F9-91A0-C7F34B9E83C7@gmx.de> <87pp4eomfx.fsf@alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk> <1435585587.97486240@apps.rackspace.com> <1435681242.435511455@apps.rackspace.com> 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: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Build instructions for regular OpenWRT with Ceropackages 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: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:58:39 -0000 On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, dpreed@reed.com wrote: > What happens if the SoC ports aren't saturated, but the link is GigE? > That is, suppose this is an access link to a GigE home or office LAN > with wired servers? As far as I can tell, the device looks like this: wifi2------ wifi1----\| SOC2 6-| SOC1 5-| WAN 4-| LAN1 3-| (switch) LAN2 2-| LAN3 1-| LAN4 0-| LAN1-4 and SOC2 is in one vlan, and SOC1 and WAN is in a second vlan. This basically means there is no way to get traffic into SOC1 that goes out SOC2 that will saturate either port, because they're both gige. Only way to saturate the SOC port would be if the SOC itself "created" traffic, for instance by being a fileserver, or if there is significant traffic on the wifi (which has PCI-E connectivity). So it's impossible to congest SOC1 or SOC2 (egress) by running traffic LAN<->WAN alone. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se