From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (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 2ACE63B29E; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:21:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from [172.17.3.29] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lo3IS-1cBegu1kC0-00g1mo; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:21:08 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:21:12 +0100 Cc: Pete Heist , cake@lists.bufferbloat.net, make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <32C42951-373F-4D90-8936-AA07039E5D73@gmail.com> <877f5c2pew.fsf@toke.dk> <42AC44CD-8C22-4EBC-B6AB-7786BA505D07@gmail.com> <35E83BE1-73D8-4FF9-B2E8-A49073E67EBA@gmail.com> To: Aaron Wood X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:cCayMYUOH4UNgJ0Pho/nffLEyvX50EB++mkU4MGTp/ccAPiV4GK jN8Lgb8cEK0Hmb3ZBXcL1ONY1l4zuz0+VAQrWtr/CP35NmmRe+Ob2FZ4xVd+mn/E+SqoX/E wvaXkdwJovsirhU8NartjhdRnco6E2z2mFIUdTIL/WPFhunEyYgOjXaNn3rKmabJ9JOQs32 uUx6AzZzYR+0OuKge+cdQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:mxyd3DI1crU=:13p/jj0h6WPJ/Sr/J6B3wd sVd7nI5vFXi67vP8vddY52EZAsiG9XqF+1cwrpSOVJ2yti/iYBtxqBPIgZFSnomzJ3MAYvRcO itNd42668pga6/d7fIf3ANugyrrguSk6MspziO3KWRHvapMWKVEr3/2EWZu0t8ayaEuv+8EPF qBVmWlouXzZeN5hD0j4W/+zpkRubOMIbDm/0wirJM3ETav9VjuwfI8wPz6UyYIgzlj/S4aJx0 SCMeXkSr0qMSDPcZ9XUfaIsrr74gZLeKMPf0VFms+4o/CkWiDzumeJg2HKndaDMyIPn1E0akW mx1YWR1EyogmiKkN/BZXvEpz7LFYHxDda32v9RoYLxZmYhfFswMkGdhZ2tVMML7ThYuFBSJ7k 4dm7HnzC1NqfJfiSGJn0VuqWyfywuKnoX3p4T1mruDhUB6o9JJdfEnbK3KHs3jNi1tjlRl5Ym /JXGlgOpZPlyGz5bh9C0zbjU6uY1sA3VNg51M7uYliQoy/rcYuX6NGkQH+hWZsSW99FulIXMm 4/J8oWB3+VZ3nxVE6wU4BQlmAkn8MbcBEYGu2Yu1IH4d2tMZBdonr8zyBr1E3azAU8IgZC35l GknsbTl1vEHM5/n+seOr2o/8a5X+2owFB/RGAnrhmoqxCJ7hIxRAlL15tbxxs7FgyhRNJzPf8 c+OzcCARFVnVlIA1UwV6RKDGQSiaVjm1Y1md6tlXcKF8F7bVvDtik9xeCS2hxPv1+CAdcwhUV JK+lfvZITBcHKzx9nrikR+12PVjTr3rXPJ1Ch3FQUc9P/fQC3RIcLF6ufEvk8Ub1tptEBYG+V lwwGrvo Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [Cake] Flent results for point-to-point Wi-Fi on LEDE/OM2P-HS available X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:21:10 -0000 > On Feb 16, 2017, at 17:15, Aaron Wood wrote: >=20 > The approach that's in all of the Cisco documentation (FWIW) about = such things for wired networks is that the higher-priority traffic = classes for VoIP and video are also bandwidth limited to a fraction of = the total (and less than a majority, at that). But that's in an = environment where you _can_guarantee a minimum level of service. With = the changing throughput rates of wifi, that's a bit harder. >=20 > But I can certainly see the case being made that the VO and VI queues = are never allowed to be over X% of traffic. I guess the problem is that any station can just decide by = itself to just send AC_VO and in a typical home steup the AP will not = get a say in that. This is why I propose the AP to escalate its own = priority marking to get its packets distributed=E2=80=A6 In a sense if = there are thresholds for permissible VO/VI traffic fractions below which = the AP will not escalate its own priority this will come close to = throttling the high priority senders, no?=20 Best Regards >=20 > -Aaron >=20 > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Pete Heist = wrote: >=20 > > On Feb 16, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Sebastian Moeller = wrote: > > > >> On Feb 16, 2017, at 08:57, Pete Heist wrote: > >> [=E2=80=A6 discussion about DSCP to WMM classes mapping] > >> This always makes me wonder what=E2=80=99s to keep someone from = just marking all their traffic 0x7 and stomping over everyone else. > > > > I have a gut feeling that an AP in a untrusted/hostile = environment should monitor the usage of the 4 different WMM classes and = step up their class accordingly. That is in an environment where there = is a lot of AC_VO or AC_VI traffic the AP should elevate its normal data = packets priority to match as not too be drowned out by the other = senders. Sort of a reciprocal tit-for-tat approach, with the goal that = the AP will keep access to a decent share of airtime. But since I am a = layman in these matters, I might be out to lunch on this=E2=80=A6 >=20 > At first I was thinking to just remove diffserv markings entirely, say = with Cake=E2=80=99s besteffort flag, but I think that =E2=80=9Cgood=E2=80=9D= and =E2=80=9Cotherwise unknowing=E2=80=9D users would suffer, which I = think in FreeNet is a vast majority of users. >=20 > I think the challenge might be what metric to use to know when classes = are being abused. Maybe roughly if dscp_value * bytes_transferred = exceeds some threshold in some given period of time, that would work. = Best effort wouldn=E2=80=99t affect this metric so they can use this = class all they want, and if someone just uses their connection for = typical VoIP usage, the threshold shouldn=E2=80=99t be exceeded. Only = when a lot of data is transferred per period of time in higher classes = would they exceed the threshold. >=20 > For now, we could just measure this (with iptables?) and send an admin = email when the threshold is exceeded, then automate a strategy to combat = it if needed. But I bet most users in a community WISP, if notified, = would just try to help fix the problem=E2=80=A6 :) >=20 > Pete >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Make-wifi-fast mailing list > Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast >=20