[Bloat] RED against bufferbloat

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:

> So you mean comparing the scenario where the AQM runs on both sides of 
> the bottleneck to one where it runs as an ingress shaper on one side 
> only?

Yes. How much lower speed/rate would the CPE ingress (internet->CPE) AQM 
have to run at to have a reasonable low probability of traffic being 
delayed by that shaper (or dropped by the policer).

I realise this would be different depending on speed of the access, but 
some data points would be interesting.

For instance, some ISPs I've heard will have a policer and 2 seconds worth 
of burst, before they drop packets. Some others might have lower burst 
values. Some will have a pretty decent FIFO shaper. There are some 
different scenarios, how much lower speed do I need to run my AQM at in 
order to try to avoid this policer or shaper to affect my traffic? Gut 
feeling would be 10-20% should be enough, but I don't know.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se