Hi Toke,
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 16:27 , Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> It would be nice if LuCI could infer information about the likely
>> overheads from the rest of the configuration, and apply (or suggest &
>> default) the correct keywords in sqm-scripts. That would make the
>> feature much more widely used.
>
> We can probably do this for the most common cases, but am not so sure
> it's unambiguous when to pick what. If someone can supply a couple of
> examples of configuration where we are fairly certain we know what to
> pick, I can look into how that can be inferred in luci…
As I tried to convey before the matter is far from simple. For example
my ISP, DTAG, has at least 4 different sets of per packet overhead (ATM versus
PTM, BRAS versus BNG) so even for this one ISP there is not one solution to the
issue. And with BRAS/BNG shaping as used by say DTAG the actual VDLS2 related
overhead becomes irrelevant compared to the overhead setting of that applied
policer. I believe trying to simplify this complexity will lead to false
overhead recommendations. I would rather direct people to better documentation
how to deduce the overhead by measurements and research…
Good
>
> -Toke
> _______________________________________________
> Cake mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
_______________________________________________
Cake mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
