[Cerowrt-devel] aqm gui feedback on cerowrt-3.10.24-1 for linklayer adaption

[Dave Taht]

one of the things that makes me happy with all-up testing is that
occasionally after completely blowing up my own work, I get to
critique fresh work that isn't mine, in an area with which I have no
expertise, with gratitude that I don't have to figure out the answer.
:)

So I spent some time clicking wildly all over the AQM gui webpage to
see what I could break.

1) the aqm gui code doesn't work due to a bug at line 66.
sc:depends("advanced", "1").
sc has to be initialized first, which happens later in the file. Extra
line removed in ceropackages, committed, pushed, you will need to do a
pull. Merge failure?

2) it's not clear to me we have to support both the stab and
htb_private methods of fixing htb's linklayer. It was important that
these be fixed for everyone else that uses htb,
but is one of these is faster than the other? I seem to recall one was
a calculated value in the kernel, the other some sort of table. Does
this choice need to be made by the
user? The two variants benchmarked? Jesper?

3) Clicking "advanced configuration" on and off toggles display of the
qdisc and qdisc script, and twiddling with the linklayer value brings
up all the extra DSL detail. Yea!

... and I think I was wrong in mentally visualizing the thing

If these were made tabs [Basic, Queueing Discipline, Linklayer,
Priorities], there would be more room for explanatory text in
particular and better alignment with the
"look and feel" of the rest of the gui. Note that "priorities" is a
placeholder for somehow
bringing out something remotely similar to what openwrt's qos system
already does
and what AQM (ceroshaper? some other name is needed) does implicitly
with optimizing for dns and ntp.

ECN enablement should be brought out in "Queueing discipline" via the
ALLECN variable. It seems likely ALLECN needs to have 4 states rather
than 3, which needs to also be fixed in the scripts.

While I'm at it, perhaps having tabs for each physical interface is
not a horrible idea,
but I shudder to think of people rate-limiting their wifi in the hope
that that would help.

?

5) Adding a second interface shows @ge01 as an option, which isn't a
real interface, and se00 as an option and not the gw* or sw*
interfaces. Adding se00 with the default option
gives me an error

One or more required fields have no value!
One or more required fields have no value!
One or more required fields have no value!
One or more required fields have no value!

(and I'm pretty sure the aqm-scripts break even if this is correctly
written to the config file)

6) feel free to add your copyright to the code.  :)

I return now to figuring out why bringing up the wifi is so hosed. I
will probably be reverting the kernel, netifd, and other things, way,
way, way back to when they used to work.

-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html