[Rpm] Almost had a dialog going with juniper...

rjmcmahon rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com
Mon Feb 20 14:22:55 EST 2023 

Did your tests specifically use a Juniper router? If not, posting those 
plots on her thread probably only leads to confusion. I think removing 
them is appropriate.

Test results are very much "your mileage will vary" and the conditions 
of the tests need to be obvious, otherwise I think they muddy the water.

Starting with an assumption that every engineering group has bloat is 
probably ok for a T&M engineer, but anybody making or implying claims 
against a specific vendor without actual measurements is something I 
think we all should avoid.

We release iperf 2 as open source so each engineering group can measure 
their systems themselves without any biases ahead of those measurements, 
and each group can freely inspect the tool too in order to see what it's 
actually doing.

Bob
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 9:57 AM Frantisek Borsik via Rpm
> <rpm at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Besides the actual evaporating of those comments that's the saddest 
>> thing for me...
> 
> The article has improved in multiple respects, actually mentioning
> better packet management earlier than it had, and the overall tone
> shifted nicely.
> 
> Frank... in the future, please criticise the ideas, and framing, and
> not the person. I was, I'll admit, incensed at seeing the comment
> thread disappear, but I then took a day to write a much better article
> about the VOQ problem with purchased circuits I have observed many
> times, and posted it widely. The comment - still preserved on that
> piece - with that link to that blog entry - I have a nice screenshot
> of now. :)
> 
> Stirring up a little controversy along the way towards the truth is
> fine! We are all in this bloat together, and need to engineer our way
> out.
> 
> I really do hope that what I see in so many VOQ -> XGbit SLA
> configurations (where the delay is additive per voq) is not as common
> (or as under-observed) as I think it is. Perhaps the scripts and blog
> I posted will encourage more folk to look at this problem more deeply,
> as it certainly seems to exist at many ISP->internet interconnects.
> Maybe good solutions will be posted somewhere on some support site
> that can be achieved on more hardware available today.
> 
> https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/juniper/
> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Frank
> 
>> 
>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>> 
>> 
>> om/in/frantisekborsik
>>> 
>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>> 
>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>> 
>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>> 
>> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 1:02 AM rjmcmahon via Rpm 
>> <rpm at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Here, look at this. Designed as a WiFi aggregation device.
>>> 
>>> https://www.arista.com/en/products/750-series
>>> 
>>> It supplies 60W PoE and claims support for 384 ports. Oh, the max
>>> distance per PoE AP is 100 meters.
>>> 
>>> That's insane as a power source and the 100M distance limit is not
>>> viable.
>>> 
>>> Our engineering needs to improve a lot.
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> > Cisco's first acquisition was Crescendo. They started with twisted
>>> > pair and moved to Cat5. At the time, the claim was nobody would rewire
>>> > corporate offices. But they did and those engineers always had an AC
>>> > power plug nearby so they never really designed for power/bit over
>>> > distance.
>>> >
>>> > Broadcom purchased Epigram. They started with twisted pair and moved
>>> > to wireless (CMOS radios.) The engineers found that people really
>>> > don't want to be tethered to wall jacks. So they had to consider power
>>> > at all aspects of design.
>>> >
>>> > AP engineers have been a bit of a Frankenstein. They have power per AC
>>> > wall jacks so the blast energy everywhere to sell sq ft. The
>>> > enterprise AP guys do silly things like PoE.
>>> >
>>> > Better is to add CMOS radios everywhere and decrease power,
>>> > inter-connected by fiber which is the end game in waveguides. Even the
>>> > data centers are now limited to 4-meter cables when using copper and
>>> > the energy consumption is through the roof.
>>> >
>>> > Bob
>>> >> On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 3:37 PM rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> A bit off topic, but the AP/client power asymmetry is another design
>>> >>> flaw similar to bloat.
>>> >>
>>> >> It makes no sense to broadcast at a watt when the device is nearby. I
>>> >> think this is a huge, and largely unexplored problem. We tried to
>>> >> tackle it in the minstrel-blues project but didn't get far enough, and
>>> >> the rate controllers became too proprietary to continue. Some details
>>> >> here:
>>> >>
>>> >> https://github.com/thuehn/Minstrel-Blues
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Not sure why nobody is talking about that.
>>> >>
>>> >> Understanding of the inverse square law is rare. The work we did at
>>> >> google fiber, clearly showed the chromecast stick overdriving nearby
>>> >> APs.
>>> >>
>>> >> https://apenwarr.ca/diary/wifi-data-apenwarr-201602.pdf
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey5jVUXSJn4
>>> >>
>>> >> Haha.
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Bob
>>> >>> > Their post isn't really about bloat. It's about the discrepancy in i/o
>>> >>> > bw of memory off-chip and on-chip.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > My opinion is that the off-chip memory or hybrid approach is a design
>>> >>> > flaw for a serious router mfg. The flaw is thinking the links' rates
>>> >>> > and the chip memory i/o rates aren't connected when obviously they
>>> >>> > are. Just go fast as possible and let some other device buffer, e.g.
>>> >>> > the end host or the server in the cloud.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Bob
>>> >>> >> https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/juniper/
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> But they deleted the comment thread. It is interesting, I suppose, to
>>> >>> >> see how they frame the buffering problems to themselves in their post:
>>> >>> >> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sizing-router-buffers-small-new-big-sharada-yeluri/
>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>> >>> > Rpm mailing list
>>> >>> > Rpm at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> >>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Rpm mailing list
>>> > Rpm at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rpm mailing list
>>> Rpm at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rpm mailing list
>> Rpm at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm

More information about the Rpm mailing list