Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Toke, > > >> On Dec 9, 2020, at 12:20, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Hi Toke, >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 9, 2020, at 11:52, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via Bloat >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Kenneth Porter <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>>> <https://forum.openwrt.org/t/why-you-need-at-least-3mbps-upload-to-get-good-game-performance-with-1500byte-packets-doing-the-math/81240> >>>>> >>>>> Upstream article: >>>>> >>>>> <http://models.street-artists.org/2020/12/05/why-gaming-on-a-dsl-line-is-terrible-and-the-math-says-theres-nothing-you-can-do-about-it/> >>>> >>>> Good points, but doesn't mention options to decrease the packet size >>>> (lower MTU/MSS clamping)... :) >>> >>> But he is doing exactly that in the script he developed for OpenWrt >>> games on poor links: >> >> Ah, cool! May be necessary to actually decrease the interface MTU as >> well, though, since TCP MSS clamping won't work for QUIC... > > Mmmh, QUIC does pMPUd, no? IN that case a "simple" filter to drop QUIC > packets along a certain size might already do the trick?
Maybe? But actually lowering the MTU of the interface would have the same effect, I guess? And what happens in the wild is anyone's guess, of course... ;) >> And of course, for IPv6 you can't decrease the MTU below 1280 bytes >> without breaking spec :( > > Jepp, but MSS clamping still works, except there are limits how > low OS will go, Macos will not go below ~200, and I believe > Linux also recently got increased values for min MSS to counter > some DOS issues with SACK and friends, no? That said, it is well > possible that even IPv6 might work with smaller MTUs... Sure, MSS clamping will work even for IPv6, but only for TCP... -Toke _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
