On 7 Aug 2013, at 14:38, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Fred, > > this got a bit longish so I took the liberty to reduce the quoted text a bit > > > On Aug 5, 2013, at 12:47 , Fred Stratton <[email protected]> wrote: > > [snipp] > >>>>> You are using 2 routers in series. I have disabled all routing functions >>>>> on the 2wire. It is transparent to the network. >>>> >>>> Which is exactly the situation I faced with the cable modem before; my >>>> cerowrt-router was provisioned with an IP address through the bridged >>>> cable-modem via DHCP, but I still could access the modem's 192.168.100.1 >>>> with out any configuration required. I know there is some openwork >>>> information (http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/howto/access.modem.through.nat) >>>> that makes it look like one needs to do more involved fiddling with the >>>> firewall, but that turned out not to be required with cerowrt. I do not >>>> know how that works if one runs a pppoe client on cerowrt though and I >>>> left cerowrt's ip address assignment in place. (My hunch is that since >>>> cerowrt leaves the typical 192.168.N.N ranges alone the whole issue gets >>>> reduced to a simple routing issue… and since Dave takes care that cero >>>> works well as secondary (test) router in a typical home situation, I guess >>>> routing 192.168.N.N is well with in cerowrt's scope) >>>> But, I guess you tried that already and it still does not work. Would >>>> be interesting to learn why… >>> >>> The difference is that you have the ISP gateway as a primary device issuing >>> a DHCP address to the cerowrt secondary router. The 2 devices are then >>> obviously on the same ipv4 subnet. >>> >>> I use the 2700 transparently. DHCP is turned off. If I turn it on, I have >>> to use the device in DMZ mode with its firewall on, which I do not want to >>> do. > > Sorry, to keep harping on this, but this is pretty close to what I did > with the cable modem. As I said I had it working with a similar setup as you > have, cerowrt was assigned a public IP (75.142.58.156) address by the > cable-ISPs dhcp server while the modems configuration interface was running > on the "private" 192.168.100.1. So the modem and cero were decidedly not on > the same IP subnet, but still I could connect to it without needing to change > anything. Initially, before I found out that it works out of the box I had > defined an alias IP address on the wan interface of (WAN2CABLEMODEM > ipv4-address: 192.168.100.2; ipv4-netmask: 255.255.255.0). But it > turned out that this was not necessary as of cerowrt 3.3.8-17 I did not need > to do this any more, accessing the cable modem just worked by directing a > browser to 192.168.100.1. > > So, have you tried to access the modem recently by simply directing a > browser to its address? And have you tried the same after just configuring an > alias as hinted above? If so what was the result? >
I configured an alias using uci at your prompting. It works. I can now access the 2700. >>> >>> Initially, I used the 2700 with the tomatoUSB router attached to that, and >>> then a router running openWRT. This setup allowed access to the 2700, >>> through a masquerade in tomatoUSB. >>> >>> Although ipv6 addresses were propagated throughout the network by Barrier >>> Breaker, ipv6 did not work, probably because of the way radvd works in >>> tomato. >>> >>> I have never used the cerowrt as a secondary device because of this. >>>> >>> > > [snipp] > >>> I do not want to use cable, which is expensive. The DOCSIS box - a custom >>> Netgear device - has a poor reputation. >>> >>> I do not want to use fibre, again, because when it comes here, it will be >>> supplied by BT/, and is traffic shaped and capped. The BT web site has 35 >>> pages of price increases for this year. >>> >>> I will continue with ADSL2+ > > I fully agree that getting ADSL(2+) links debated and offering low > latency internet access is worthwhile as a considerable number of people > simply have no other choice available. And this is why your case is so > interesting! If you can improve the "interactivity" in your home and document > the required steps somewhere others will have an easier time. > > Yes. Hopefully others using ADSL will also participate. > > best > Sebastian > > >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sebastian >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> best regards >>>>>> Sebastian >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3 Aug 2013, at 10:38, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Fred, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 2013, at 00:35 , Fred Stratton <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 31 Jul 2013, at 23:14, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Fred, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> thanks a lot. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2013, at 23:37 , Fred Stratton <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> tc -s -d class show dev ge00 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> class htb 1:10 parent 1:1 leaf 110: prio 0 quantum 1500 rate >>>>>>>>>>> 700000bit ceil 700000bit burst 1599b/1 mpu 0b overhead 0b cburst >>>>>>>>>>> 1599b/1 mpu 0b overhead 0b level 0 >>>>>>>>>>> Sent 15809014 bytes 115190 pkt (dropped 4733, overlimits 0 requeues >>>>>>>>>>> 0) >>>>>>>>>>> rate 3616bit 3pps backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >>>>>>>>>>> lended: 115190 borrowed: 0 giants: 0 >>>>>>>>>>> tokens: 263560 ctokens: 263560 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> class htb 1:1 root rate 700000bit ceil 700000bit burst 1599b/1 mpu >>>>>>>>>>> 0b overhead 0b cburst 1599b/1 mpu 0b overhead 0b level 7 >>>>>>>>>>> Sent 15809014 bytes 115190 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >>>>>>>>>>> rate 3616bit 3pps backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >>>>>>>>>>> lended: 0 borrowed: 0 giants: 0 >>>>>>>>>>> tokens: 263560 ctokens: 263560 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> class fq_codel 110:1b8 parent 110: >>>>>>>>>>> (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >>>>>>>>>>> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >>>>>>>>>>> deficit 84 count 0 lastcount 0 delay 10us >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> tc -s -d class show dev ifb0 >>>>>>>>>>> class htb 1:10 parent 1:1 leaf 110: prio 0 quantum 1500 rate >>>>>>>>>>> 7000Kbit ceil 7000Kbit burst 1598b/1 mpu 0b overhead 0b cburst >>>>>>>>>>> 1598b/1 mpu 0b overhead 0b level 0 >>>>>>>>>>> Sent 192992612 bytes 168503 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues >>>>>>>>>>> 0) >>>>>>>>>>> rate 17096bit 4pps backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >>>>>>>>>>> lended: 168503 borrowed: 0 giants: 0 >>>>>>>>>>> tokens: 27454 ctokens: 27454 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> class htb 1:1 root rate 7000Kbit ceil 7000Kbit burst 1598b/1 mpu 0b >>>>>>>>>>> overhead 0b cburst 1598b/1 mpu 0b overhead 0b level 7 >>>>>>>>>>> Sent 192992612 bytes 168503 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues >>>>>>>>>>> 0) >>>>>>>>>>> rate 17096bit 4pps backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >>>>>>>>>>> lended: 0 borrowed: 0 giants: 0 >>>>>>>>>>> tokens: 27454 ctokens: 27454 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> class fq_codel 110:cc parent 110: >>>>>>>>>>> (dropped 10, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >>>>>>>>>>> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >>>>>>>>>>> deficit -198 count 1 lastcount 1 ldelay 2.3ms >>>>>>>>>>> class fq_codel 110:1d9 parent 110: >>>>>>>>>>> (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >>>>>>>>>>> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >>>>>>>>>>> deficit 226 count 0 lastcount 0 ldelay 2us >>>>>>>>>>> class fq_codel 110:1de parent 110: >>>>>>>>>>> (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >>>>>>>>>>> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >>>>>>>>>>> deficit 238 count 0 lastcount 0 ldelay 10us >>>>>>>>>>> class fq_codel 110:345 parent 110: >>>>>>>>>>> (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >>>>>>>>>>> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >>>>>>>>>>> deficit 226 count 0 lastcount 0 delay 9us >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I changed the hard coded values in /usr/lib/aqm/functions.sh to >>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary values, rebooted and obtained the same results. Both >>>>>>>>>>> reflect the 7000kbit/s down and 700kbit/s up I entered in the >>>>>>>>>>> window. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What is the line rate as read out from the del modem or >>>>>>>>>> specified in your contract? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Speedtest.net shows the rate as circa 8.7 megabits/s down, 1 >>>>>>>>> megabit/s up. Line has radio frequency interference from unidentified >>>>>>>>> sources.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So it looks like specify a generous reserve for the shaper. Can >>>>>>>> you log into your modem and get the current line rates? The rf >>>>>>>> interference, is it constant (if you can get nice SNR per sub carrier >>>>>>>> or even ust bit loading per frequency plots) that is does it only >>>>>>>> affect the same frequencies or does it change? (I ask, because >>>>>>>> temporary interference might reduce the effective line rate, >>>>>>>> potentially moving the buffer back into the del modem) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Target snr upped to 12 deciBel. Line can sustain 10 megabits/s with >>>>>>>>> repeated loss of sync.at lower snr. Contract is for 'up to >>>>>>>>> 20megabits/s'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So ADSL2+ as you even mentioned it before. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 850 metres from exchange. Line length circa 1.2km. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I ticked the adsl box. Altering the value in functions.sh and >>>>>>>>>>> unticking the box, with reboot, produced the same outcome. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This nicely shows I screwed up my testing (and or forgot to >>>>>>>>>> reboot between changes). Or I did try too high a data rate >>>>>>>>>> (initially 97% of the raw link rate) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> traceroute google.com >>>>>>>>>>> traceroute: Warning: google.com has multiple addresses; using >>>>>>>>>>> 173.194.41.128 >>>>>>>>>>> traceroute to google.com (173.194.41.128), 64 hops max, 52 byte >>>>>>>>>>> packets >>>>>>>>>>> 1 172.30.42.1 (172.30.42.1) 0.631 ms 0.323 ms 0.249 ms >>>>>>>>>>> 2 * * * >>>>>>>>>>> 3 10.1.3.234 (10.1.3.234) 22.596 ms 21.241 ms 22.392 ms >>>>>>>>>>> 4 * 10.1.3.214 (10.1.3.214) 27.018 ms 26.703 ms >>>>>>>>>>> 5 10.1.4.249 (10.1.4.249) 29.682 ms 28.923 ms 27.479 ms >>>>>>>>>>> 6 * * * >>>>>>>>>>> 7 * 209.85.252.186 (209.85.252.186) 30.379 ms * >>>>>>>>>>> 8 72.14.238.55 (72.14.238.55) 25.745 ms 25.345 ms 25.594 ms >>>>>>>>>>> 9 lhr08s03-in-f0.1e100.net (173.194.41.128) 27.566 ms 27.390 ms >>>>>>>>>>> 27.663 ms >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> mtr shows packet losses at hops 2-5 >>>>>>>>>>> 10.1.3.* are Internet Watch Foundation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty reasonable for an adsl link (could be way >>>>>>>>>> worse with higher interleaving) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Netalyzr was used. I appreciate it is an imperfect metric. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK. Like the ping train idea. Cannot get netperf 2.6.0 to build on >>>>>>>>> Ubuntu 12.04 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I typically run a 1000 count ping against the nearest host >>>>>>>> that is on the other side of the DSL link that also gives consistent >>>>>>>> ping RTTs without load. Then I start my test loads like saturating the >>>>>>>> upload with a long runnig TCP transfer and opening 99 media heavy tabs >>>>>>>> in a browser (I really should try the chrome benchmark that Dave is >>>>>>>> using). And the I simply look through the ping statistic results, >>>>>>>> typically I look at the maximum, and at the standard deviation to get >>>>>>>> a handle on how tight the shaper held latency under control. (If I >>>>>>>> should get netperf-wrapper to work under Macosx I will try to use that >>>>>>>> for testing, but it does not even install, and if I get past that >>>>>>>> hurdle I will have to adjust for the differences between Gnu ping and >>>>>>>> BSD ping). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>>> Sebastian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, I ran into this issue before. In short netalyzr's worst >>>>>>>>>> case delay numbers do not seem to reflect how an fq_codelled >>>>>>>>>> connection feels. >>>>>>>>>> Netalyzr uses an unresponsive UDP probe to force the bottleneck >>>>>>>>>> router's buffers to fill up; with unresponsiveness being a property >>>>>>>>>> no sane flow over the intent should exhibit. Codel/fq_codel is >>>>>>>>>> tailored for responsive flows and will only gradually increase its >>>>>>>>>> drop frequency so responsive TCP flows will be controlled gently and >>>>>>>>>> keep link utilization high. Given enough time codel will also rein >>>>>>>>>> in an unresponsive flows. But netalyzr's probe duration is too short >>>>>>>>>> for that to be happening during netalyzr's runtime. >>>>>>>>>> Fq_codel in my experience does a decent job at keeping interactivity >>>>>>>>>> high even with competing traffic like netalyzr (so turn a ping train >>>>>>>>>> against say 10.1.3.234 while netalyzr runs or try netperf-wrapper >>>>>>>>>> in addition). >>>>>>>>>> So netalyzr really probes the worst case buffer depth against >>>>>>>>>> basically a "denial of service" type of load; I am not fully sure >>>>>>>>>> what the expectancy on the disc here should be. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> best >>>>>>>>>> Sebastian >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 31 Jul 2013, at 21:38, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> tc -s -d class show dev ge00 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >
_______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
