From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FCF83B29E for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:39:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F2E38A6C; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:40:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 71DblfWQCzSx; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:40:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EC938A17; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:40:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B004F3; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:39:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Mikael Abrahamsson cc: Dave Taht , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Subject: Re: [Starlink] dynamically adjusting cake to starlink X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 16:39:45 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > Would be nice if there was a generic mechanism for this but since several of > these devices use L2 I think it'd have to be something LLDP like (also on > L2). Yes, that makes sense, or using a PPP LCP attribute for DSL links. > Dave, how often does information regarding rate/scheduler need to be > distributed from the scheduling node to the node that is trying to not use > the upstream buffer? I presume this is in the 0.1 to 1s range, because the > scheduler might change quite frequently and substantially? I wonder if LLDP like updates that frequently. I'm told that on multi-port (like 48) ethernet switches, that the LLDP channel from fabric to control plane is rate limited to around O(10) packets/s! This might be irrelevant to the applications we are imagining. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAmDA7s4ACgkQgItw+93Q 3WXvbQf+Ofri6cvce3ZLVIygJpjw9kqoBoi9OxQy0gez7API1/PvCOhrZncQ88V6 pAIH/XdZYIk9uJGfxMn4K27fTNUfzYC9Eo+t0444B5ADqR5U/ZB3DbV5GojW7fyw d7EneYnonEBb7QysTlj/6f5QNVWJRrXH7Xl7u/pDd/YKSo2yfg190OKUuXh2kCJX xgXfuDYoBzzat5tkdI08kBovaffCjH6WXhB2ny/KOrUxBkphjBJL2XhUMqec2cSo Y6KztLFRaxf23MdGfvHFfLHk7vE2mHES+Jgsit7X8lEfluHILwgs7ZCVWWOnn5z3 AvKaPJAPq6h9NHDokgAFsE5kW6CezQ== =3eDd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--