From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 647D521F1BC for ; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 02:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.17.151.121] ([80.187.96.24]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MZ7bs-1WCwim1qQu-00KyCG for ; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:01:48 +0100 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <34E77F64-739C-49E4-B8A4-6ABBEAE4174B@gmail.com> <8DB84101-C942-49C4-99F0-6C9319961297@gmail.com> <22176178-A50F-48F2-A3A1-D3853764AD0E@gmail.com> <0E267F91-3CC8-48F4-92C0-AD8BACA98FCC@gmail.com> <1FA2FD44-D715-4B50-BB5A-BAF61070970B@gmx.de> <31B5B61B-4E58-4C5E-8F33-710CCE0918F4@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Sebastian Moeller Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:01:41 +0100 To: Rich Brown ,Dave Taht Message-ID: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:G8q5qXbCL+KsXKn8OQfhgiqH1l1m1N/+OXl19PI/pL10bL669kA 5GnA1mMti+pw1cUzOSqKfeNE4tbybotEgJhRNyEuhsZHvPptpFwdrgwEitP5wDB3xywB4bA 8gqywQRCXDYHQL3xOOmS5V3dfhGstru65JI9L+nKcTdmPUfjdiZKduubBVgSlQYjZdyPKaZ K1VnHwQdNupcCqaDadTHg== Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] CeroWrt 3.10 AQM page 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: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:01:52 -0000 Rich Brown wrote: >Folks, > >I have updated the CeroWrt 3=2E10 AQM page=2E Thanks for all the comments= , >I=E2=80=99ll incorporate more comments as people send them in=2E Some tho= ughts on >the page so far: > >- I agree that we should keep the descriptions generic (that is, not >tailored specifically to CeroWrt) so we can push into OpenWrt without >changes=2E=20 > >- It=E2=80=99s also a good idea to look for good marketing name (SQM, IQM= , etc) >so that we can tout the goodness of the fq_codel, &c=2E I=E2=80=99ll subm= it >another proposal on the =E2=80=9CAnything but =E2=80=98AQM=E2=80=99=E2=80= =9D thread=2E Could any of us come up with a decent backronym? > >- I removed references to calling the ISP - sometimes it could work, >but I see now how it could also be problematic=2E Too bad since the ISP will have this information available, the alte= rnatives are Google and luck or long measurements=2E=2E=2E > >- I prefer telling people to decide on their link layer adaptation >using the term =E2=80=9CADSL=E2=80=9D instead of =E2=80=9CATM=E2=80=9D (e= ven though it=E2=80=99s technically >more true) since nobody knows what ATM is, and they (most likely) do >know whether they have DSL, Cable, Fiber, or something else I think ATM is the way to go, otherwise those unlucky souls on VDSL = links with ATM carriers will be quite confused=2E And in case ADSL should l= earn to use PTM instead the GUI and wiki will still be okay=2E=2E=2E Assumi= ng the users are willing to learn ATM might work=2E=2E=2E > >- I wasn=E2=80=99t clear where a decision about overhead of 40 or 44 come= s >from, or where it should be described 44 seems to be worst case overhead for DSL over atm , so defaulting t= o 44 would work for everybody, wasting some bytes per packet for most=2E 40= seems to be the largest size that is actually common, wasting less for eve= ryone=2E=2E=2E Both of these are with PPPoE=2E I had a look at tomato's and= gargoyle, one of the tomato's let's the user select the encapsulation from= a long list, the other one automatically selects link layer ADSL when pppo= e is in use=2E I argue that both methods are suboptimal, the former assumes= quite a bit of information from the user, the latter has too many false po= sitives (in Germany vdsl2 typically uses pppoe but PTM)=2E > >- Are there any better (but still easy to use) speed test tool besides >speedtest=2Enet? I think these tools pretty much all are not too helpful for our purp= ose as they measure average bandwidth over the whole path, while we need sl= owest non-shared link, aka the bottleneck we can actually reliably affect w= ith sqm > >- It=E2=80=99s a good idea to make it easy for people to get back to defa= ults=2E >Could there be a =E2=80=9CRestore Defaults=E2=80=9D button on the Basic S= ettings tab?=20 Not sure, the queueing setup script selection is quite nonstandard= =2E=2E=2E > >Draft #2 of the Setting up AQM page is available at: >http://www=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_C= eroWrt_310 > >Thanks in advance for all your comments=2E Thanks for creating this, the next version of the GUI will contain a= link=2E It would be excellent if we could have a new name by then=2E=2E=2E > >Rich > >PS And if you=E2=80=99re running short of things to work on, the new =E2= =80=9CQuick >Test for Bufferbloat=E2=80=9D page *really* needs help=2E=20 Hi Rich, --=20 Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E