> On Feb 16, 2017, at 18:19, Jonathan Morton <chromati...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 frequency.

        Here is part of the problem: the more aggressive airtime access of the 
VI and VO classes will massively cut down the actual achievable bandwidth over 
all classes. And I might add this effect is not restricted to the AP and 
station under one’s control, but all other stations and APs using the same 
frequency that are in the close RF neighborhood will affect the available 
airtime and hence achievable bandwidth. If you look how wifi achieves its 
higher bandwidth it is by using longer periods of airtime to make up for the 
rather fixed time “preamble” that wastes time without transmission of user 
data. VI users in the vicinity will drastically (IIRC) reduce the ability to 
send those aggregates. In other words link saturation is partly a function of 
which AC classes are used and not a nice and fixed entity as for typical wired 
connections. Now if you can control both sides of your transfer _and_ all other 
users of the same frequency that are RF-visible to your endpoints, it might be 
possible to thnk of a wifi link in similar terms as a wired one, but I would be 

Best Regards

> - Jonathan Morton

Cake mailing list

Reply via email to