At least you ISP's trunk seems decent ping -t 109.90.28.1
Packets: sent=150, rcvd=150, error=0, lost=0 (0.0% loss) in 74.660177 sec RTTs in ms: min/avg/max/dev: 158.255 / 159.140 / 161.922 / 0.528 Bandwidth in kbytes/sec: sent=0.120, rcvd=0.120 On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Dennis Fedtke <dennisfed...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > yes this is wired connection. As i stated my ping times always vary > independently of target. > My ISP is overloaded in certain regions. So i assume they do some > shaping/limiting on certain protocols (icmp for example) > Connection speed is 200/20 Mbit. > ISP is unitymedia which doesn't allow you to use your own hardware. > So actually i have to run my router behind theirs with exposed host > enabled :< > > Ping response: > > ping -s 1400 -c 1 109.90.x.x > PING 109.90.28.1 (109.90.28.1) 1400(1428) bytes of data. > 1408 bytes from 109.90.28.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=253 time=11.6 ms > > --- 109.90.28.1 ping statistics --- > 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 11.677/11.677/11.677/0.000 ms > > This looks good or? > > Yes i am from germany. So you are from germany too? > > Thanks for your time and help :) > > > Best regards > Dennis > > > Am 10.06.2016 um 15:02 schrieb moeller0: > >> Hi Dennis, >> >> On Jun 10, 2016, at 14:43 , Dennis Fedtke <dennisfed...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sebastian, >>> >>> i used the default setting of 1000. >>> >> Okay, that should work i assume unless you have a very fast link… >> What link at what ISP do you actually have? >> >> But it seems that my isp is dropping icmp packets if there are exceeding >>> some sending threshold. >>> >> I would be amazed if they did, a sympotom of that would be rsate >> reduction to all ICMP probe flows independent of target host. If however >> you only see this with specific hosts it is very likely that that host rate >> limits its ICMP responses. In either case try another host further >> upstream. II think I has reasonable decent results with targeting 8.8.8.8, >> googles dns servers. >> >> So there is a lot of none usable ping data. >>> >> Again, try another host… >> >> I increased the send delay to 50ms. 25 ms already shows dropped requests. >>> >> That might also help, as long as you stay below their throttling >> rate the chosen host might still work okay. >> >> This is the third run now. Waiting for completion. >>> >> Well, sorry that the method is not as slick and streamlined, but >> there are no guarded good ICMP reflectors available on the net. >> >> The ping target is my first hop. >>> >> Try the next hop then ;) >> >> Actually my ping always varies around +-5ms even at idle and >>> independently of ping target. >>> >> This is via wifi/wlan? If so try from a wired connection instead. >> >> When i look through the ping file the increase in ping times are actually >>> appear to be random to me. >>> >> Well, we expect variability of the individual “trials” to exist, >> that is why we collect so many and try to select the best measure in the >> matlab code to remove the unwanted variance. Could you post a link to both >> of the generated plots please, the first one showing te different >> aggregation measures might be helpful in diagnosing the issues deeper. >> >> So how to test if my isp responses with fixed icmp packet size? >>> >> You could try manually. In the folloewing example I pinged >> gstatic.com (which belongs to googles CDN as far as I know): >> >> bash-3.2$ ping -s 1 -c 1 gstatic.com >> PING gstatic.com (216.58.213.195): 1 data bytes >> 9 bytes from 216.58.213.195: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 >> >> --- gstatic.com ping statistics --- >> 1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0.0% packet loss >> >> >> bash-3.2$ ping -s 64 -c 1 gstatic.com >> PING gstatic.com (216.58.213.195): 64 data bytes >> 72 bytes from 216.58.213.195: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=19.446 ms >> >> --- gstatic.com ping statistics --- >> 1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0.0% packet loss >> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 19.446/19.446/19.446/0.000 ms >> >> >> bash-3.2$ ping -s 65 -c 1 gstatic.com >> PING gstatic.com (216.58.213.195): 65 data bytes >> 72 bytes from 216.58.213.195: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=21.138 ms >> wrong total length 92 instead of 93 >> >> --- gstatic.com ping statistics --- >> 1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0.0% packet loss >> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 21.138/21.138/21.138/0.000 ms >> bash-3.2$ >> >> >> bash-3.2$ ping -s 1400 -c 1 gstatic.com >> PING gstatic.com (216.58.213.195): 1400 data bytes >> 72 bytes from 216.58.213.195: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=6.878 ms >> wrong total length 92 instead of 1428 >> >> --- gstatic.com ping statistics --- >> 1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0.0% packet loss >> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 6.878/6.878/6.878/0.000 ms >> >> Once I try to send 65 Bytes of ICMP payload the response is cut short to >> 92 bytes, the same might happen with your isp. But also if all your ISP >> does is rate limiting the ICMP packests that still can lead to to much >> variance in the RTTs… >> >> >> Im in central europe too :D >>> >> Ah, then you just have a different work/sleep cycle than I do ;). >> Where in central Europe, if I might as Ii am, as you might have guessed >> based in Germany… >> >> Best Regards >> Sebastian >> >> Thanks :) >>> >>> >>> Am 10.06.2016 um 07:20 schrieb moeller0: >>> >>>> Hi Dennis, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 02:49 , Dennis Fedtke <dennisfed...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sebastian, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry this is positive or? >>>>> >>>> I would say that is unclear… >>>> >>>> But i need more samples ? >>>>> >>>> I would try with more samples, after checking that the ping >>>> times in the recorded data file actually are larger for larger probes than >>>> for smaller, some hosts will reply with a fixed maximum ICMP packet instead >>>> of returning the received packet, thereby reducing the signal range (as >>>> only the upload leg of the link is meaning fully contributing useful >>>> differential signal. >>>> BTW I am in central europe so at times of the day my responses >>>> can be very sporadic, as I either am at work or sleeping ;) >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> Sebastian >>>> >>>> Thanks :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 10.06.2016 um 01:11 schrieb moeller0: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Dennis, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 00:45 , Dennis Fedtke <dennisfed...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Sebastian, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thank you for your answers :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The ATM overhead detector script is currently running. >>>>>>> I read the wiki about it but im not quite sure how to interpret the >>>>>>> plot. >>>>>>> I mean what info should i read from it? maximum packet size? >>>>>>> >>>>>> The relevant number is reported as “Estimated overhead >>>>>> preceding the IP header” in the top part of the second figure created by >>>>>> the script. But that is only relevant.useful if you see a nice step like >>>>>> plot in figure 2 as well ( the second figure in >>>>>> https://github.com/moeller0/ATM_overhead_detector/wiki as positive >>>>>> and the fourth figure as negative example. >>>>>> >>>>>> If yes do i set the overhead in cake? Or do i set iptables to clamp >>>>>>> to new mtu/mss? >>>>>>> >>>>>> If you use plain cake and you know the numerical overhead >>>>>> (NN) the easiest is to add the following to your cake invocation: “atm >>>>>> overhead NN” >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that if you use cake on an ethernet interface the kernel >>>>>> will already account for 14 byte of ethernet overhead, so if the script >>>>>> told you 44 as actual overhead, you use ”overhead 30” to address that. If >>>>>> you use a pppoe interface the kernel will most likely not add the 14 >>>>>> bytes >>>>>> for you, so then you would use “overhead 44” (I excluded the atm option >>>>>> in >>>>>> the last examples for clarity…) >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding UDP paket dropping problem: >>>>>>> I just read some forums and users stated that under heavy load cake >>>>>>> starts to drop udp packets which causes lag ingame. >>>>>>> My idea was to set ingress/egress to diffserv4 and apply the EF dscp >>>>>>> mark on those packets. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Ell, not a bad idea, but often the problem are in the >>>>>> incoming traffic, and unfortunately with the ifb we use we can not use >>>>>> iptables, but only tc, and remarking with tc is unpleasant. >>>>>> >>>>>> Will this even work? if yes how to do this? iptables? >>>>>>> >>>>>> No, you wuld need tp use tc. >>>>>> >>>>>> ipt -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p udp -m multiport --ports 5000:5500 -j >>>>>>> DSCP --set-dscp-class EF >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Like thia? Is prerouting correct here? (Taken from layer cake script) >>>>>>> >>>>>> This will affect outgoing packets and might be a good idea in >>>>>> your specific case. >>>>>> >>>>>> BUT why don’t you try the default behaviour with specific rules and >>>>>> tricks and report success or failure back to us, after all the >>>>>> fastest/easiest classification is one one does not need to perform at >>>>>> all. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the squash and wash feature. >>>>>>> Im asking because if i choose to squash in the advanced options of >>>>>>> sqm scripts. >>>>>>> The dscp fields/marks will be overwritten by iptables to 0 >>>>>>> (besteffort). (layer cake script) >>>>>>> So then it makes no sense to manually set dscp fields/marks or? (Or >>>>>>> even setting diffserv) >>>>>>> >>>>>> No unfortunately on ingress cake sees the packets before >>>>>> iptables, so the effective behavioral emulation of wash/squash by cake is >>>>>> to set ingress cake to besteffort (basically cake ignores the dscp field >>>>>> which functionally is identical to all packets having the same value). >>>>>> The >>>>>> squashing by iptables just clears the dscp marls so that internal >>>>>> networking elements like potentially wifi liknks are not confuzed by the >>>>>> dscp information. >>>>>> >>>>>> Did i understand this correctly. Per rfc isps should not provide dscp >>>>>>> fields/marks? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Not exactly, per RFC DSCPs are only ever valid/defined inside >>>>>> a DSCP domain and your ISPs domain ends before it reaches your CPE. Since >>>>>> you have no control over your ISPs markings, they can be very much not >>>>>> like >>>>>> you want them to be (Dave That reported that his ISP re-mapped almost 1/3 >>>>>> or so of packets into the CS1 background class). So it is recomended that >>>>>> each DSCP domain re-mapps the code points at its entry point, which in >>>>>> your >>>>>> case is your router… >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>> Sebastian >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 09.06.2016 um 23:30 schrieb moeller0: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Dennis, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> let me start with a disclaimer, I am not the best information >>>>>>>> source for cake on this mailing list, but I assume the others will >>>>>>>> chime in >>>>>>>> if I say something questionable… >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2016, at 22:58 , Dennis Fedtke <dennisfed...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Currently im running lede + cake + sqm_scripts and i have some >>>>>>>>> questions: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. What is considered the “optimal" setup atm for cake? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The same as without cake; really, proper >>>>>>>> per-packet-overhead accounting is important for bandwidth shaping, >>>>>>>> especially for ATM -based links. I would recommend to follow the >>>>>>>> method on >>>>>>>> https://github.com/moeller0/ATM_overhead_detector to m\empirically >>>>>>>> measure whether your link uses ATM encapsulation and what exact >>>>>>>> overhead is >>>>>>>> in use. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> e.g. which cake script should i use piece or layer cake? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> piece_of_cake has only one tier of priority, while >>>>>>>> layer_cake currently offers 4. Packets are put into the different >>>>>>>> priority >>>>>>>> bands based on the content of their TOS/DSCP filed in the IP header; if >>>>>>>> this is greek to you, I guess piece_of_cake most likely is what you are >>>>>>>> looking for.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Recently squash and wash was removed. >>>>>>>>> But the sqm scripts were not updated. In the advanced options >>>>>>>>> should i set that the dcsp marks are kept? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This really is an implementation detail that has no >>>>>>>> immediate effect if you choose piece_of_cake as typically only the >>>>>>>> bottleneck is sensitive to DSCP based priority banding. (Typically in >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> if you are unlucky your WLAN will use the DSCP marks to move packets >>>>>>>> into 4 >>>>>>>> different priority classes, which is fine if you want that, but bad >>>>>>>> for not >>>>>>>> sanity checked packets coming in from the wider internet (one is not >>>>>>>> supposed to assume incoming packets have sensible dscp markings as per >>>>>>>> RFC) >>>>>>>> that is why the wash/squash option is missed by some of us, >>>>>>>> independent of >>>>>>>> the fact that it was a layering violation). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3. Should i use advanced options in sqm scripts and set >>>>>>>>> triple-isolate + diffserv8 ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you understand what these options do and believe that >>>>>>>> this is the best for your network go ahead, otherwise… The >>>>>>>> triple-isolate >>>>>>>> option will try to be fair to host_IP addresses first and then for each >>>>>>>> hostIP fair to each flow, but for that to do something you will most >>>>>>>> likely >>>>>>>> want this requires that cake sees internal IP addresses of your >>>>>>>> end-hosts. >>>>>>>> In the typical configuration with SQM on the WAN interface of a NAT >>>>>>>> router >>>>>>>> all internal addresses are replaced with the external IP address of the >>>>>>>> router it self and triple-isolates per host fairness will pretty much >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> equal to per flow fairness (not exactly, but in essence). So if you >>>>>>>> want to >>>>>>>> try tiple-isolate or its better defined brothers dual-srchost and >>>>>>>> dual-dsthost you would need to instantiate SQM on an internal interface >>>>>>>> like LAN. But then the direction of ingress and egress from the routers >>>>>>>> perspective changes with regards to the internet download and upload >>>>>>>> direction and you will need to put the internet upload bandwidth into >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> download field of the sqm GUI and vice versa. Also SQM on an internal >>>>>>>> interface will also shape internal traffic over the same interface, and >>>>>>>> that often affects traffic to and from the wifi/wlan radios to the lan >>>>>>>> switch… (I guess you would have preferred a shorter less vague >>>>>>>> response, >>>>>>>> but such are the constraints…) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4. Is it recommend to enable diffserv on ingress? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you trust/konw/have confirmed that your upstream (ISP?) >>>>>>>> sends you sensible and reasonable DSCP markings by all means enable >>>>>>>> diffserv on ingress. But the default assumption should be that your >>>>>>>> upstream used a dscp mapping that only makes sense for them and not >>>>>>>> for you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 5. Is there still the udp packet dropping problem? e.g. games that >>>>>>>>> are using udp. >>>>>>>>> If yes does it make sense to apply diffserv classes manually? How >>>>>>>>> to do this? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean, but if you test this and have >>>>>>>> some findings please report here… >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 6. is the autorate_ingress still under development? >>>>>>>>> This very interesting feature. especially for docsis networks. >>>>>>>>> Will it be possible to set target ping time? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The last tests did indicate that this feature is not ready >>>>>>>> for primetime at least not on typically fixed bandwidth links and I >>>>>>>> assume >>>>>>>> docsis links are fixed enough. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 6. What difference does it make to set a different rtt? >>>>>>>>> Setting lower rtt will reduce download speed i guess but will it >>>>>>>>> allow better ping times (because of lower downloadrate uh)? >>>>>>>>> What happens if rtt is set way higher? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With the RTT parameter you in essence specify how much time >>>>>>>> you give the endpoints of a flow to respond to a congestion signal (ECN >>>>>>>> marking or packet drop) if you select this way to small you will >>>>>>>> sacrifice >>>>>>>> bandwidth, if you set this too high you will accumulate more latency >>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>> load. The good thing seems to be that this does not need to be terribly >>>>>>>> precise, order of magnitude correctness seems to be sufficient (at >>>>>>>> least in >>>>>>>> base2) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am sure the real experts will also chime in… >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>>> Sebastian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Cake mailing list >>>>>>>>> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cake mailing list >>>>>>> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake >
_______________________________________________ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake