Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
On 19 Mar, 2015, at 19:04, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote: Jim Gettys j...@freedesktop.org wrote: Moral 1: anything not tested by being used on an ongoing basis, doesn't work. Moral 2: Companies like Comcast do not (currently) control their own destiny, since they outsourced too much of the technology to others. Moral 2 might be something that the C* suite types might actuall get. I don't know how to get that message there, though. Be careful what you wish for: if the cable companies controlled the hardware more tightly, how much less experimentation would we be able to do? The general hackability of your average CPE router is a benefit to our research efforts, even if the default configuration they come with is still utterly terrible. - Jonathan Morton ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
How many years has it been since Comcast said they were going to fix bufferbloat in their network within a year? And LTE operators haven't even started. THat's a sign that the two dominant sectors of Internet Access business are refusing to support quality Internet service. (the old saying about monopoly ATT: we don't care. we don't have to. applies to these sectors). Have fun avoiding bufferbloat in places where there is no home router you can put fq_codel into. It's almost as if the cable companies don't want OTT video or simultaneous FTP and interactive gaming to work. Of course not. They'd never do that. On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 3:50pm, Jonathan Morton chromati...@gmail.com said: ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel Right, so until 3.1 modems actually become available, it's probably best to stick with a modem that already supports your subscribed speed, and manage the bloat separately with shaping and AQM. - Jonathan Morton ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:53 AM, dpr...@reed.com wrote: How many years has it been since Comcast said they were going to fix bufferbloat in their network within a year? Any quote on that? THat's a sign that the two dominant sectors of Internet Access business are refusing to support quality Internet service. I’m not sure this is a fair statement. Comcast is a major (if not “the” player) in CableLabs, and they made it clear that for Docsis 3.1, aqm was one of the important target. This might not have happened without all the noise around bloat that Jim and Dave made for years. (now peering and transit disputes are another ball game) While cable operators started pretty much with a blank slate in the early days of Docsis, they now have to deal with legacy and a huge tail of old devices. So in this respect, yes they are now a bit like the DSL incumbents, introduction of new technologies is over a 3-4 years timeframe at least. It's almost as if the cable companies don't want OTT video or simultaneous FTP and interactive gaming to work. Of course not. They'd never do that. You might be surprised at how much they care for gamers, these are often their most vocal users. And those who will call to get things fixed. Support calls and truck rolls are expensive and touch the bottom line, where it hurts… JF (a former cable operator) ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
Jim Gettys j...@freedesktop.org wrote: Moral 1: anything not tested by being used on an ongoing basis, doesn't work. Moral 2: Companies like Comcast do not (currently) control their own destiny, since they outsourced too much of the technology to others. Moral 2 might be something that the C* suite types might actuall get. I don't know how to get that message there, though. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:53 AM, dpr...@reed.com wrote: How many years has it been since Comcast said they were going to fix bufferbloat in their network within a year? It is unfair to lump every individual in an organization together. All orgs have people trying to do the right thing(s), and sometimes, eventually, they win. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, and docsis 3.1 is entering trials. Some competition still exists there for both modems (8? providers?) and CMTSes (3). My hope is that if we can continue to poke at it, eventually a better modem and cmts setup will emerge, from someone. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/sig.html Or one of the CMTS vendors will ship something that works better, although the ARRIS study had many flaws (LRED was lousy, their SFQ enhancement quite interesting): preso: http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/trimfat/Cloonan_Presentation.pdf paper: http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/trimfat/Cloonan_Paper.pdf I have of the cynical view that it does help to have knowledgeable people such as yourself rattling the cages, and certainly I was pleased with the results of my recent explosion at virgin - 2000+ hits on the web site! 150 +1s! So I do plan to start blogging again (everyone tired of my long emails? wait til you see the blog!) And LTE operators haven't even started. And we haven't worked our magic on them, nor conducted sufficient research on how they could get it more right. That said, there has been progress in that area as well, and certainly quite a few papers demonstrating their problems. THat's a sign that the two dominant sectors of Internet Access business are refusing to support quality Internet service. (the old saying about monopoly ATT: we don't care. we don't have to. applies to these sectors). Have fun avoiding bufferbloat in places where there is no home router you can put fq_codel into. Given the game theory here, this is why my own largest bet has been on trying to resuscitate the home router and small business firewall markets. covering bets are on at least some ISPs (maybe not in the US) getting it right, on regulation, etc. Forces I am actively working against include the plans juniper and cisco are pimping for moving ISP cpe into the cloud. It's almost as if the cable companies don't want OTT video or simultaneous FTP and interactive gaming to work. Of course not. They'd never do that. I do understand there are strong forces against us, especially in the USA. I ended up writing a MUCH longer blog entry for this, I do hope I get around to getting that site up. On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 3:50pm, Jonathan Morton chromati...@gmail.com said: ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel Right, so until 3.1 modems actually become available, it's probably best to stick with a modem that already supports your subscribed speed, and manage the bloat separately with shaping and AQM. - Jonathan Morton ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel -- Dave Täht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:11 AM, JF Tremblay jean-francois.tremb...@viagenie.ca wrote: On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:53 AM, dpr...@reed.com wrote: How many years has it been since Comcast said they were going to fix bufferbloat in their network within a year? They had hoped to be able to use a feature in DOCSIS to at least set the buffering to the correct size for the provisioned bandwidth. While not fixing bufferbloat, it would have made a big difference (getting latency down to the 100ms range; that would have taken my original 1.2 seconds of bloat down to 100ms). When they went and tested that feature, the actual implementations weren't there and were so buggy, they couldn't turn it on. Moral 1: anything not tested by being used on an ongoing basis, doesn't work. Moral 2: Companies like Comcast do not (currently) control their own destiny, since they outsourced too much of the technology to others. Any quote on that? THat's a sign that the two dominant sectors of Internet Access business are refusing to support quality Internet service. I’m not sure this is a fair statement. Comcast is a major (if not “the” player) in CableLabs, and they made it clear that for Docsis 3.1, aqm was one of the important target. This might not have happened without all the noise around bloat that Jim and Dave made for years. (now peering and transit disputes are another ball game) While cable operators started pretty much with a blank slate in the early days of Docsis, they now have to deal with legacy and a huge tail of old devices. So in this respect, yes they are now a bit like the DSL incumbents, introduction of new technologies is over a 3-4 years timeframe at least. Yup. It's almost as if the cable companies don't want OTT video or simultaneous FTP and interactive gaming to work. Of course not. They'd never do that. You might be surprised at how much they care for gamers, these are often their most vocal users. And those who will call to get things fixed. Support calls and truck rolls are expensive and touch the bottom line, where it hurts… Yup. And I agree with Dave Taht, Comcast has had a lot more technical clue than most other ISP's we've interacted with. And these industries are captive to the practices of the companies that make the gear, and as I've said in public at the Berkman Center, this has really bad and dangerous consequences for the Internet. I'll post a new version of that talk, maybe later today. Now, I've yet to detect any clue it cellular ISP's And there, dpr's complaints I believe are correct. - Jim JF (a former cable operator) ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
I'll look up the quote, when I get home from California, in my email archives. It may have been private email from Richard Woundy (an engineering SVP at Comcast who is the person who drove the CableLabs effort forward, working with Jim Gettys - doing the in-house experiments...). To be clear, I am not blaming Comcast's engineers or technologists for the most part. I *am* blaming the failure of the Comcast leadership to invest in deploying the solution their own guys developed. I was skeptical at the time (and I think I can find that email to Rich Woundy, too, as well as a note to Jim Gettys expressing the same skepticism when he was celebrating the CableLabs experiments and their best practices regarding AQM). It's worth remembering that CableLabs, while owned jointly by all cable operators, does not actually tell the operators what to do in any way. So recommendations are routinely ignored in favor of profitable operations. I'm sure you know that. It's certainly common knowledge among those who work at CableLabs (I had a number of conversations with Richard Green when he ran the place on this very subject). So like any discussion where we anthropomorphize companies, it's probably not useful to pin blame. I wasn't trying to pin blame anywhere in particular - just observing that Cable companies still haven't deployed the actual AQM options they already have. Instead the cable operators seem obsessed with creating a semi-proprietary game lane that involves trying to use diffserv, even though they don't (and can't) have end-to-end agreement on the meaning of the DCP used, and therefore will try to use that as a basis for requiring gaming companies to directly peer with the cable distribution network, where the DCP will work (as long as you buy only special gear) to give the gaming companies a fast lane that they have to pay for (to bypass the bloat that they haven't eliminated by upgrading their deployments). Why will the game providers not be able to just use the standard Internet access service, without peering to every cable company directly? Well, because when it comes to spending money on hardware upgrades, there's more money in it to pay for the upgrade. That's just business logic, when you own a monopoly on Internet access. You want to maximize the profits from your monopoly, because competition csn't exist. [Fixing bufferbloat doesn't increase profits for a monopoly. In fact it discourages people from buying more expensive service, so it probably decreases profits.] It's counterintuitive, I suppose, to focus on the business ecology distortions caused by franchise monopolies in a technical group. But engineering is not just technical - it's about economics in a very fundamental way. Network engineering in particular. If you want better networks, eliminate the monopolies who have no interest in making them better for users. On Thursday, March 19, 2015 10:11am, JF Tremblay jean-francois.tremb...@viagenie.ca said: On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:53 AM, dpr...@reed.com wrote: How many years has it been since Comcast said they were going to fix bufferbloat in their network within a year? Any quote on that? THat's a sign that the two dominant sectors of Internet Access business are refusing to support quality Internet service. I’m not sure this is a fair statement. Comcast is a major (if not “the” player) in CableLabs, and they made it clear that for Docsis 3.1, aqm was one of the important target. This might not have happened without all the noise around bloat that Jim and Dave made for years. (now peering and transit disputes are another ball game) While cable operators started pretty much with a blank slate in the early days of Docsis, they now have to deal with legacy and a huge tail of old devices. So in this respect, yes they are now a bit like the DSL incumbents, introduction of new technologies is over a 3-4 years timeframe at least. It's almost as if the cable companies don't want OTT video or simultaneous FTP and interactive gaming to work. Of course not. They'd never do that. You might be surprised at how much they care for gamers, these are often their most vocal users. And those who will call to get things fixed. Support calls and truck rolls are expensive and touch the bottom line, where it hurts… JF (a former cable operator) ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
Hi David, On March 18, 2015 5:34:30 AM GMT+01:00, David P. Reed dpr...@reed.com wrote: It is not the cable modem itself that is bufferbloated. It is the head end working with the cable modem. Docsis 3 has mechanisms to avoid queue buildup but they are turned on by the head end. I seem to recall that even on egress charter cable showed multiples hundred of bufferbloat, so I would argue that even at docs is 3.0 the modems might be over buffered or under-AQM'd. The head end certainly is another problem... I don't know for sure but I believe that the modem itself cannot measure or control the queueing in the system to minimize latency. I believe this is supposed to happen with docs is 3.1 where PIE is mandatory in the modems. Now whether the ISPs will activate it or not I do not know. Best Regards sebastian You can use codel or whatever if you bound you traffic upward and stifle traffic downward. But that doesn't deal with the queueing in the link away from your home. On Mar 17, 2015, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:35:32 -0700, Matt Taggart said: Hi cerowrt-devel, My cable internet provider (Comcast) has been pestering me (monthly email and robocalls) to upgrade my cable modem to something newer. But I _like_ my current one (no wifi, battery backup) and it's been very stable and can handle the data rates I am paying for. But they are starting to roll out faster service plans and I guess it would be good to have that option (and eventually they will probably boost the speed of the plan I'm paying for). So... Any recommendations for cable modems that are known to be solid and less bufferbloated? I've been using the Motorola Surfboard SB6141 on Comcast with good results. Anybody got a good suggestion on how to test a cablemodem for bufferbloat, or what you can do about it anyhow (given that firmware is usually pushed from the ISP side)? ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel -- Sent with K-@ Mail - the evolution of emailing. ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Jonathan Morton chromati...@gmail.com wrote: DOCSIS 3.1 mandates support for AQM (at minimum the PIE algorithm) in both CPE and head end. If you can get hold of a D3.1 modem […]. That last part might involve robbing the house of a Comcast employee... ;) http://www.lightreading.com/cable/docsis/comcast-puts-docsis-31-live-in-the-field/d/d-id/714494 http://www.lightreading.com/cable/docsis/comcast-puts-docsis-31-live-in-the-field/d/d-id/714494 No D3.1 hardware is certified at this point, the chipsets are just barely out and still experimental. Customers probably won’t see D31 hardware before 2016. Btw, in my experience, modems and CMTSes have no AQM at all configured. And the buffers are large, in both directions. The more recent the model, the more buffer it usually has (hey, more speed requires more buffer, right?). I’ve seen multiple Mb in some models, can’t remember the exact amount, but it might have been 2-4 Mb for my current TM702. So the worst case is actually to have a very recent modem with a lower-tier speed (like a 10 Mbps). JF ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
Right, so until 3.1 modems actually become available, it's probably best to stick with a modem that already supports your subscribed speed, and manage the bloat separately with shaping and AQM. - Jonathan Morton ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
DOCSIS 3.1 mandates support for AQM (at minimum the PIE algorithm) in both CPE and head end. If you can get hold of a D3.1 modem, you'll at least be ready for the corresponding upgrade by your ISP. Unfortunately I don't know which cable modems support which DOCSIS versions, but it should be straightforward to look that up for any given model. - Jonathan Morton ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
It is not the cable modem itself that is bufferbloated. It is the head end working with the cable modem. Docsis 3 has mechanisms to avoid queue buildup but they are turned on by the head end. I don't know for sure but I believe that the modem itself cannot measure or control the queueing in the system to minimize latency. You can use codel or whatever if you bound you traffic upward and stifle traffic downward. But that doesn't deal with the queueing in the link away from your home. On Mar 17, 2015, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:35:32 -0700, Matt Taggart said: Hi cerowrt-devel, My cable internet provider (Comcast) has been pestering me (monthly email and robocalls) to upgrade my cable modem to something newer. But I _like_ my current one (no wifi, battery backup) and it's been very stable and can handle the data rates I am paying for. But they are starting to roll out faster service plans and I guess it would be good to have that option (and eventually they will probably boost the speed of the plan I'm paying for). So... Any recommendations for cable modems that are known to be solid and less bufferbloated? I've been using the Motorola Surfboard SB6141 on Comcast with good results. Anybody got a good suggestion on how to test a cablemodem for bufferbloat, or what you can do about it anyhow (given that firmware is usually pushed from the ISP side)? ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel -- Sent with K-@ Mail - the evolution of emailing.___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:35:32 -0700, Matt Taggart said: Hi cerowrt-devel, My cable internet provider (Comcast) has been pestering me (monthly email and robocalls) to upgrade my cable modem to something newer. But I _like_ my current one (no wifi, battery backup) and it's been very stable and can handle the data rates I am paying for. But they are starting to roll out faster service plans and I guess it would be good to have that option (and eventually they will probably boost the speed of the plan I'm paying for). So... Any recommendations for cable modems that are known to be solid and less bufferbloated? I've been using the Motorola Surfboard SB6141 on Comcast with good results. Anybody got a good suggestion on how to test a cablemodem for bufferbloat, or what you can do about it anyhow (given that firmware is usually pushed from the ISP side)? pgpkXU3zCiBml.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
[Cerowrt-devel] DOCSIS 3+ recommendation?
Hi cerowrt-devel, My cable internet provider (Comcast) has been pestering me (monthly email and robocalls) to upgrade my cable modem to something newer. But I _like_ my current one (no wifi, battery backup) and it's been very stable and can handle the data rates I am paying for. But they are starting to roll out faster service plans and I guess it would be good to have that option (and eventually they will probably boost the speed of the plan I'm paying for). So... Any recommendations for cable modems that are known to be solid and less bufferbloated? I (like probably everyone on this list) will have router doing SQM/etc connected to the device, so that reduces the damage large buffers in it can do, but it would still be good to have something that designed well and to reward a vendor that's paying attention. My personal ideal is a simple device, cable-in gig ethernet out, and does not have wifi, usb, do NAT, etc. (that's what cerowrt on the router/AP is for). Are there DOCSIS 3.1 devices available yet? Or if those aren't available/affordable, maybe an inexpensive but good 3.0? Thanks, -- Matt Taggart m...@lackof.org ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
