On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Adrian Kennard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/06/2015 18:57, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote: >> It was the uplink side and the recent adoption of Zyxel kit which >> made me wonder out loud to AA-Andrew earlier today regarding A&A >> bufferbloat experiences/testing on that side of things with the new >> modems. You're an ISP that would have some clue in that regard and >> hence hopefully a bit of clout with the OEM to do things right (see >> baby jumbo frames support) It's me being curious again...sorry! > > We can try... Working hard to fix some showstoppers like MTU on bridging > and the like, first.
I found dslreports.com's summary stats page: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/isp/AS20712 not enough samples, but pretty good results. Comparisons were interesting also. I love a competitive marketplace! (And am admiring all the tools for continuous link monitoring AA does) On the downlink, I am relatively uninformed until today. A lot of ISPs have mentioned HFSC+SFQ without much details. There are several things, conflated together, that are hurting dsl performance on the uplink nowadays. 1) A lot of DSL modem firmware used to some form of fq buried deep in the driver. FT used to mandate SQF, for example. 2) a lot of modems would exert ethernet hardware flow control at very minimal packet depths. (hardware flow control is so correct for a cable, fiber, or dsl "modem" - but as manufacturers started embedding switches into the modem, this feature has been getting lost) 3) connecting routers used to have a default packet depth of 100 (or less!) and thus responded to flow control more sanely than the current linux default of 1000. I would be surprised if firebrick had a packet depth that high. as for 2 and 3, I know a LOT of people that passionately hold onto their old dsl modems because they are "better" than anything newer they've tried. I know one guy that treasures his circa-1998 one... however, as fq_codel and pie (any latency sensitive aqm) work GREAT with hardware flow control, this would work better than any fixed packet limit. A metric ton of people have reported results like ipfire did in this case: http://planet.ipfire.org/post/ipfire-2-13-tech-preview-fighting-bufferbloat (And I keep hoping the DCB people in DCs are taking notice.) 4) In order to get higher reliability (for things like multicast udp tv), a lot of DSL providers use "interleaving", which incurs quite a bit of added latency on the link. 5? anyone? -- What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
