From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 9305121F77A for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 03:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4AF00A1; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 12:32:22 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1435746742; bh=IKAnIlm9WrpTyDd4cQXoL++10kbZXFzbbhXZd4jTqaA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=xnzGAFEN7L2zkGlr/9qxodPQya2LrRRr3Bs6BuknCjrOk13hPJLCZtYOuanOqS0ji XY9fHqFB1FEu9zhjbswkfrqkY8G4PRnWt2bQE8XwzSVxH+yKhQ/zYhfR+wbayjv/dB 8AxusQ0GUTdDNirtRB4A7wibzZmJkPxizKiG6oF8= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F7E9F; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 12:32:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 12:32:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: David Lang In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <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: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:32:55 -0000 On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, David Lang wrote: > not true, the switch doesn't give any way for traffic to get from one vlan to > the other one, so if you have gig-e connections on both sides, the traffic > going from one to the other will have to go through the soc, so if there is > more than 1Gb of traffic in either direction the interface will be saturated. I don't see how it can be. The switch has a 4 externally facing ports, these all go to a single SoC port that is GigE, so the SoC cannot ingest more than 1G of traffic from the 4 LAN ports. The L2 switch chip will do the egress dropping from LAN ports->SoC ports, so there is no AQM there. > The problem is if you have a slower connection, the bottleneck is in the > switch not the soc. you may be able to set the soc-switch interface to 100Mb > (make sure you have access through another interface in case you cut yourself > off) and that would make the soc see the queue directly. That is my point. There is no way by doing traffic LAN<->WAN to get egress congestion on the SoC ports, and it's on the SOC ports we can do AQM. The SoC ports is gigabit ethernet only, no 10/100 available according to ethtool. So the only way to generate congestion egress on the WAN SOC port is to add traffic locally from the SoC (iperf3 for instance), or adding traffic from Wifi. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se