Hi Fred,
On Aug 23, 2013, at 15:02 , Fred Stratton <fredstrat...@imap.cc> wrote:
[snipp]
>>
>>>
>>> Thus, in kernels >= 3.9, you would need to change/reduce your tc
>>> "overhead" parameter with -14 bytes (iif you accounted encapsulated
>>> Ethernet header before)
>>
>> That is what I thought before, but my kernel spelunking made me
>> reconsider and switch to not subtract the 14 bytes since as I understand it
>> the kernel actively does not do it if stab is used.
>>
>>>
>>> The "overhead" of stab can be negative, so no problem here, in an "int"
>>> for stab.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Meaning that
>>>>> some ATM encap overheads simply cannot be configured correctly (as you
>>>>> need to subtract the ethernet header).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I see, luckily PPPoA and IPoA seem quite rare, and setting the
>>>> overhead to be larger than it actually is is relatively benign, as it will
>>>> overestimate packe size.
>
>
> As a point of information, the entire UK uses PPPoA rather than PPPoE, and
> some hundreds of thousands of users IPoA.
Lucky you! I guess one more reason to switch cerowrt over to stab,
since PPPoA with VC/mux just adds 10 bytes of overhead, so if the ethernet
would be accounted for already that would mean overhead -4 which HTB can not
represent anyway. That said, unlike Jesper, I am not sure that tc stab includes
the ethernet header by itself currently. Thanks for you input.
[snipp]
Best
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
