> On 16 Feb, 2017, at 18:51, Pete Heist <petehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At first I was thinking to just remove diffserv markings entirely, say with 
> Cake’s besteffort flag, but I think that “good” and “otherwise unknowing” 
> users would suffer, which I think in FreeNet is a vast majority of users.

That’s not what the “besteffort” flag does.  It ignores DSCPs and puts all 
traffic into a single tin, but doesn’t remove the DSCP marking.

>> In a sense if there are thresholds for permissible VO/VI traffic fractions 
>> below which the AP will not escalate its own priority this will come close 
>> to throttling the high priority senders, no? 
> I thought Aaron’s suggestion sounds both sensible and not difficult to 
> implement. That way we wouldn’t even have to regularly monitor it, and anyone 
> who is marking all their packets thinking they’re doing themselves a favor is 
> just limiting their max throughput.
> Could there be another keyword in Cake to do this automatically, say 
> “fairdiffserv", or would this just be feature bloat for what is already a 
> sophisticated shaper? I don’t know if there are sensible mappings from dscp 
> value to max percentage throughput that would work most of the time, or if 
> there could also be an adjustable curve parameter that controls the 
> percentage backoff as you go up dscp levels.

This is actually what Cake already does by default (the “diffserv3” mode).  If 
you look at the detailed statistics (tc -s qdisc), you’ll see that each tin has 
a “threshold” bandwidth.  If there’s more traffic than that threshold in that 
tin, the tin will be deprioritised - it can still use all of the bandwidth left 
spare by other tins’ traffic, but no more than that.

Additionally, diffserv3 mode uses more aggressive AQM settings on the “voice” 
tin than the “best effort” tin, on the grounds that the former is a request for 
minimum latency.  This should also discourage bulk traffic from using 
unnecessarily high DSCPs.

However, in both the “besteffort” and “diffserv3” cases, the DSCP may be 
interpreted independently by the NIC as well as Cake.  In the case of wifi, 
this affects the medium grant latency and priority.  If the link isn’t 
saturated, this shouldn’t affect Cake’s prioritisation strategy much if at all, 
but it does have implications for the effect of other stations sharing the 

 - Jonathan Morton

Cake mailing list

Reply via email to