> Fra: Nils Andreas Svee <[email protected]> > > just fine, but I'd probably pick the ER-X-SFP for the beefier CPU, if > only to get some extra headroom.
Then ER-X-SFP it is. >DSL tends to suck pretty (read: very) bad without proper shaping, I > know. On that note, are you planning to run an AQM on both ends of the > bottleneck, or shape ingress traffic via a IFB device? CAKE helps a lot > when running on ingress, but it can't come close to running on both > ends. I intended to only shape on egress for this experiement. Let downstream be handled by the BRAS's policies (Juniper ERX in our case). Most of the customer "speed" complaints come from not throughput but latency. And that latency is mostly ADSL/VDSL customers with large uploads to cloud services. So I think that we will by handling the upstream better make a large improvement. But, hey, I call it an experiemnt because it is an experiemnt. If we see significant improvements by using IFB for downstream as well. Then we will try to see what we can do to implement this. -Erik _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
