Hi Jonathan, Thanks for the data.
On April 2, 2019 4:14:34 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Foulkes <[email protected]> wrote: >Responses below > >> On Apr 2, 2019, at 8:10 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> >wrote: >> >> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >> >>> I just wondered if anybody has any reasonable estimate how many >end-users actually employ fair-queueing AQMs with active ECN-marking >for ingress traffic @home? I am trying to understand whether L4S >approach to simply declare these as insignificant in number is >justifiable? >> >> If more than 0.01% of HGWs did this I'd be extremely surprised. > >My observation is that the number is very small, even devices with SQM >services, rarely see them enabled, and when they are, are set to >sub-optimal values. >I see Sebastian doing a valiant, even heroic effort at addressing >technical users questions on forums, but even those users seem confused >at times. > >> >>> I know in openwrt with sqm that is the default, but I have no idea >about >> >> To configure ingress shaping you actually have to know the speed and >configure it. It's not the default. Also, it's useless if the transport >network queues the packets at lower rate than at what you receive it. >When I used my DOCSIS connection it routinely forwarded packets at >lower rates than what I bought (and had configured the ingress shaper >for). > >As noted in other responses, the actual throughput needs to be measured >and then monitored to ensure the ingress shaping is aligned with >current capacity of the link. And not just the HGW to BNG, but just as >importantly, account for any constraints in backhaul from the BNG. Sure, but for the most part I have been limited either by the access link/BNG-shaper or limited peering/transit between my ISP and specific target servers, and in the second case I would hate to slow everything to a crawl just because my ISP and say YouTube try to Duke out who should pay for access, content to eyeballs or vice versa... > >> >>> the number of devices that actually use sqm in the field; @Jonathan: >does evenroute have numbers you are willing to share, like total >numbers or % of iqrouters with ecn-marking ingress routing active? > >@Sebastian, 100% of IQrouters running firmware 3.x (which uses Cake as >the default AQM) respect/use ECN. This has been shipping since >September, 2018. All existing v2 IQrouters (first ship January 2017) >may upgrade to 3x (user initiated, but one-click). >As for split, 70% of deployed IQrouters are doing ECN today. Excellent, thanks so most of them.... >As for count, well, that’s private. I had a hunch, that would be the case ;) . Understandable, though. >But the good new is we have ISP customers >rolling them out at a good clip. >Turns out that having a sane traffic manager at the HGW on every node >of a DSLAM is very good for the DSLAM, the backhaul and the actual >users, who quit screaming at the ISP ;-) Oh, nice, I fully agree upstream AQM is a case where the goals and incentives for end-users and ISPs seem well aligned. > >> >> ISP networks typically looks like this in the ISP->HGW direction: >> >> BNG->L2->L2->HGW >> >> This is the same regardless if it's DSL, DOCSIS, FTTH/PON or >whatever. So shaping is done egress on BNG and it tries to send at >lower rate than any of the L2 devices. Generally there is no ingress >shaping of any kind on the HGW, it doesn't even know what speed the >subscription is. >> >> -- >> Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ >> Bloat mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
