Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?

["David P. Reed" <dpreed@reed.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1793 bytes --]

It is not the cable modem itself that is bufferbloated. It is the head end working with the cable modem. Docsis 3 has mechanisms to avoid queue buildup but they are turned on by the head end.

I don't know for sure but I believe that the modem itself cannot measure or control the queueing in the system to minimize latency.

You can use codel or whatever if you bound you traffic upward and stifle traffic downward. But that doesn't deal with the queueing in the link away from your home.

On Mar 17, 2015, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:35:32 -0700, Matt Taggart said:
>> Hi cerowrt-devel,
>>
>> My cable internet provider (Comcast) has been pestering me (monthly
>email
>> and robocalls) to upgrade my cable modem to something newer. But I
>_like_
>> my current one (no wifi, battery backup) and it's been very stable
>and can
>> handle the data rates I am paying for. But they are starting to roll
>out
>> faster service plans and I guess it would be good to have that option
>(and
>> eventually they will probably boost the speed of the plan I'm paying
>for).
>> So...
>>
>> Any recommendations for cable modems that are known to be solid and
>less
>> bufferbloated?
>
>I've been using the Motorola Surfboard SB6141 on Comcast with good
>results.
>Anybody got a good suggestion on how to test a cablemodem for
>bufferbloat,
>or what you can do about it anyhow (given that firmware is usually
>pushed
>from the ISP side)?
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

-- Sent with K-@ Mail - the evolution of emailing.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2698 bytes --]