Responses below
> On Apr 2, 2019, at 8:10 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>
>> I just wondered if anybody has any reasonable estimate how many end-users
>> actually employ fair-queueing AQMs with active ECN-marking for ingress
>> traffic @home?
Hi Ryan,
See below
> On Apr 2, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Ryan Mounce wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 23:35, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>
>> I've read rumours about some ISPs implementing interaction with the VDSL
>> DSLAM where there is an estimation of the current link-speed for each
>> individual
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 00:05, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 2019, at 15:15, Ryan Mounce wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 22:08, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> >>
> >> I just wondered if anybody has any reasonable estimate how many end-users
> >> actually employ fair-queueing AQMs
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 00:41, Jonathan Foulkes wrote:
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> See below
>
> > On Apr 2, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Ryan Mounce wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 23:35, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> >>
> >> I've read rumours about some ISPs implementing interaction with the VDSL
> >> DSLAM where
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for the data.
On April 2, 2019 4:14:34 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Foulkes
wrote:
>Responses below
>
>> On Apr 2, 2019, at 8:10 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson
>wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>>
>>> I just wondered if anybody has any reasonable estimate how
> On 2 Apr, 2019, at 5:14 pm, Jonathan Foulkes wrote:
>
> But the good new is we have ISP customers rolling them out at a good clip.
> Turns out that having a sane traffic manager at the HGW on every node of a
> DSLAM is very good for the DSLAM, the backhaul and the actual users, who quit
>
> On Apr 2, 2019, at 16:14, Jonathan Foulkes wrote:
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> See below
>
>> On Apr 2, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Ryan Mounce wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 23:35, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>>
>>> I've read rumours about some ISPs implementing interaction with the VDSL
>>> DSLAM where
Hi Ryan,
See below
> On Apr 2, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Ryan Mounce wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 23:35, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>
>> I've read rumours about some ISPs implementing interaction with the VDSL
>> DSLAM where there is an estimation of the current link-speed for each
>> individual
Responses below
> On Apr 2, 2019, at 8:10 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>
>> I just wondered if anybody has any reasonable estimate how many end-users
>> actually employ fair-queueing AQMs with active ECN-marking for ingress
>> traffic @home?
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Ryan Mounce wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 00:04, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
What you described is probably on 95% or more of egress shaping on the BNG
and on egress shaping on HGWs in the field.
How many of these single queue deployments actually have ECN marking
enabled?
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 00:04, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> What you described is probably on 95% or more of egress shaping on the BNG
> and on egress shaping on HGWs in the field.
How many of these single queue deployments actually have ECN marking
enabled? This is the really dangerous case with
> On Apr 2, 2019, at 15:15, Ryan Mounce wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 22:08, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>>
>> I just wondered if anybody has any reasonable estimate how many end-users
>> actually employ fair-queueing AQMs with active ECN-marking for ingress
>> traffic @home? I am trying
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Ryan Mounce wrote:
L4S people are concerned by RFC 3168 / "classic" ECN bottlenecks
*without* fq. I don't think there would be any such ingress shapers
configured on home gateways. Certainly not by anyone on this list...
anyone running non-fq codel or flowblind cake for
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 23:35, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> I've read rumours about some ISPs implementing interaction with the VDSL
> DSLAM where there is an estimation of the current link-speed for each
> individual customer and then it tries to set the BNG egress shaper
> appropriately.
NBN
Hi Mikael,
> On Apr 2, 2019, at 15:04, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>
>> See above how Deutsche Telekom deals with that issue, at least in the
>> German market.
>
> I've read rumours about some ISPs implementing interaction with the VDSL
>
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 22:08, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>
> I just wondered if anybody has any reasonable estimate how many end-users
> actually employ fair-queueing AQMs with active ECN-marking for ingress
> traffic @home? I am trying to understand whether L4S approach to simply
> declare these
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
See above how Deutsche Telekom deals with that issue, at least in
the German market.
I've read rumours about some ISPs implementing interaction with the VDSL
DSLAM where there is an estimation of the current link-speed for each
individual
HI Mikael,
> On Apr 2, 2019, at 14:10, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>
>> I just wondered if anybody has any reasonable estimate how many end-users
>> actually employ fair-queueing AQMs with active ECN-marking for ingress
>> traffic @home? I am
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
I just wondered if anybody has any reasonable estimate how many
end-users actually employ fair-queueing AQMs with active ECN-marking for
ingress traffic @home? I am trying to understand whether L4S approach to
simply declare these as insignificant
Dear all,
I just wondered if anybody has any reasonable estimate how many end-users
actually employ fair-queueing AQMs with active ECN-marking for ingress traffic
@home? I am trying to understand whether L4S approach to simply declare these
as insignificant in number is justifiable?
I know in
20 matches
Mail list logo
