Hi Dave,
On Jan 6, 2014, at 04:46 , Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Sebastian Moeller moell...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Rich,
On Jan 4, 2014, at 19:16 , Rich Brown richb.hano...@gmail.com wrote:
QUESTION #5: I still don’t have any great answers for the Link
Hi Fred,
On Jan 6, 2014, at 10:52 , Fred Stratton fredstrat...@imap.cc wrote:
I have been operating the latest build with 6relayd disabled. The henet /48 I
have been allocated is subnetted correctly, presumably by dnsmasq.
I adopted the suggestions to use nfq_codel and an egress target of
The line rate is 11744/1022 kb/s, but changes moment to moment. SNR is
12.1 decibel. I am using 11000/950 kb/s as settings. I shall try your
suggestion when there is something worth watching live, to provide a
valid comparison, which may not be before 21:30 CET on Sunday.
On 06/01/14 14:12,
Hi Fred,
On Jan 6, 2014, at 15:22 , Fred Stratton fredstrat...@imap.cc wrote:
The line rate is 11744/1022 kb/s, but changes moment to moment. SNR is 12.1
decibel. I am using 11000/950 kb/s as settings.
So 100 * 11000 / 11744 = 93.66% of downlink line rate and 100* 950 /
1022 =
Hi Dave,
thanks a lot for the explanation.
On Jan 6, 2014, at 16:03 , Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 6, 2014 5:56 AM, Sebastian Moeller moell...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Dave, hi List,
On Jan 6, 2014, at 04:29 , Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at
Hi Rich,
I had a quick look at the current state of the page and I really like what you
created there.
I noticed that for ECN you argue:
For the Download (inbound, ingress) link, we recommend you turn ECN on so
that CeroWrt can inform the local receiver that it has detected congestion
