From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pj1-x1033.google.com (mail-pj1-x1033.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 306653B29E for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2023 12:18:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1033.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-271c700efb2so2989724a91.0 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2023 09:18:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1694449096; x=1695053896; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KGmcObSEYKxqjPsPQwmSV3H0WYzwM9imRCjbU5IA+D0=; b=BvREEolnGgM+isO2EpfysX9bQzeMtP49PXBpLqfpzOWvlBhx3kKHLvEsLvHCEJoedG 0PE09KUExR1UndukcjkunJJO6vh4LYNYvBMkoyN39PdVHIoIPWt3BsviRMhNqti8eM+c kdB5VSqmc/YXZakFrIyNQ5rq7eCLyTwxOfqKYLSjr+I6BxRiGIaEABtlhO5KRLs4KPOh 19AA9oBoa/t3oz/CrArWeciVqJ4eHvK0xMzB+2C7t7Tl2nPy8lghddhziAwRlx+t7+wW Rz1w/Fc7u3uilrISxC2W3ZUI3INJndXpGQtqtb8W042y5MRtNJP3y5hdjMijEo/Z06Ix dzaA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1694449096; x=1695053896; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=KGmcObSEYKxqjPsPQwmSV3H0WYzwM9imRCjbU5IA+D0=; b=TmRkvXal59ZbSTE4UbKxbAJpr+dOfepJ+F7D/tkVwU+roMhiGyPWcP87gKOLDH0er0 IoySroPYpPrhOpnXV+/FWPMqwaDDRgNlq0rxXtwIdXIrRG62z55NPvJrgZ4zCnnCnZTs RSMLQN1XeFDjp+2GGxpdjg85BR8ZlG+tEvY2oJI78yw6eAxpYjAcXiGHoRz21kki/XB9 nnmnqmxwDhqhdX45/Z7wjHj0O4WAkycl0m0rKl/hneH7l9YSp3g/iRdXmaAJhoVS3jze f/ypPGM8D+ttdMMRaGsBiY1FaQ2LUjCGoLzyIo+jF5ctuCZ9ImI0K9H9zTAGaOQWsk2m pqmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxbhr5rzcJkBDkrs19f4Tl4COH08ZS6ewd5AWvRPnAg8SMmc9aH mqLSIB4INKW5dHg9RRqa1jIHR4OvTl1An8JFNh0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFroiaws/EfXrSU5kvDE30sQ+ea7sUY1NB03Wax3KE3G3dFJZad1cpbpi6M8I8eBIhsBBRhHoYYkIRrPAGEjoo= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:350f:b0:263:5d25:150c with SMTP id ls15-20020a17090b350f00b002635d25150cmr7515430pjb.29.1694449095898; Mon, 11 Sep 2023 09:18:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 09:18:01 -0700 Message-ID: To: Ignacio Ocampo Cc: libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000737aba060517acbe" Subject: Re: [LibreQoS] LibreQoS upstream + Cake/FQ_Codel in CPE Router? X-BeenThere: libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Many ISPs need the kinds of quality shaping cake can do List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:18:17 -0000 --000000000000737aba060517acbe Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Most of our users are in the libreqos chat, and you will in general get fasters responses there than here. On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 7:35=E2=80=AFPM Ignacio Ocampo via LibreQoS < libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > Hi all, > > Is it recommended (or not), to run Cake/FQ_Codel in CPE routers, even if > LibreQoS is running upstream? > We recommend running cake on the CPE up, and LibreQos to manage the down. It is very helpful to have cake running in nat mode on the actual device doing nat (and in that case managing the down also at that device can help) We recommend using wifi routers that run fq_codel natively on the wifi, also, as at higher rates the bottlenecks' bloat shift to the wifi. https://lwn.net/Articles/705884/ Many devices support fq_codel on the wifi natively, the eero 5, evenroute, and many gl.inet products do. > > If so, which are the advantages? > Running cake on the actual bottleneck prevents malignant traffic from escaping the home network. A mere ping flood can be controlled by libreqos, but it is better to slow that down and mix it up with all the other traffic at the cpe. The algorithms for ack-filtering and congestion management are always more accurate when put on the actual bottleneck. Also, I'm assuming I will have to set up the router with a lower bandwidth > than the assigned by LibreQoS? > yes. > > For instance, if LibreQoS is assigning 13Mbit to the customer, the router > (with Cake or FQ_Codel) enabled need to have a limit of ~11Mbit? > On up from the cpe traffic, you should be able to use the same number as you use in libreqos. For shaping the down at the cpe the historical recommendation has always been 85-90%, but with libreqos managing that, no shaping of the down is needed, although I do call out the nat case as a potential exception. > > Please advise. Thanks! > > -- > Ignacio Ocampo > > _______________________________________________ > LibreQoS mailing list > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos > --=20 Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.htm= l Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos --000000000000737aba060517acbe Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Most of our users are in the libreqos cha= t, and you will in general get fasters responses there than here.

<= /div>

On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 7:35=E2=80=AFPM Ignacio Ocampo via LibreQoS &l= t;libreqos@lists.bufferbl= oat.net> wrote:
Hi all,

Is it recommended (or no= t), to run Cake/FQ_Codel in CPE routers, even if LibreQoS is running upstre= am?

We recommend running cake o= n the CPE up, and LibreQos to manage the down. It is very helpful to have c= ake running in nat mode on the actual device doing nat (and in that case ma= naging the down also at that device can help)

We r= ecommend using wifi routers that run fq_codel natively on the wifi, also, a= s at higher rates the bottlenecks' bloat shift to the wifi.=C2=A0
=


Many devices suppor= t fq_codel on the wifi natively, the eero 5, evenroute, and many gl.inet pr= oducts do.

If so, which are the advantages?
<= /blockquote>

Running cake on the actual bottleneck=C2=A0= prevents malignant traffic from escaping the home network. A mere ping flo= od can be controlled by libreqos, but it is better to slow that down and mi= x it up with all the other traffic at the cpe. The algorithms for ack-filte= ring and congestion=C2=A0management are always more accurate when put on th= e actual bottleneck.=C2=A0

Also, I'm assuming=C2=A0I w= ill have to set up=C2=A0the router with a lower bandwidth than=C2=A0the ass= igned by LibreQoS?

yes.=C2=A0

For instance, if LibreQoS=C2=A0is assigning 13Mbit to the c= ustomer, the router (with Cake or FQ_Codel) enabled need to have a limit of= ~11Mbit?

On up from the cpe tr= affic, you should be able to use the same number as you use in libreqos. Fo= r shaping the down at the cpe the historical recommendation has always been= 85-90%, but with libreqos managing that, no shaping of the down is needed,= although I do call out the nat case as a potential exception.
= =C2=A0

Please advise. Thanks!
<= br>
--
Ignacio Ocampo

_______________________________________________
LibreQoS mailing list
LibreQo= S@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos


--
Dave T=C3=A4ht = CSO, LibreQos
--000000000000737aba060517acbe--