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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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... ;)
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
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
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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
