Re: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16

[Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jonathan 

As mentioned in response to Sebastian. There is a possibility that these
routers can be updated to support L4S later on so this mean that there is a
possible way out of issue #16 at least for these devices. 
Of course it takes a look in a well polished crystal ball to see if that
will happen.

Regards
/Ingemar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Morton <[e-mail]>
> Sent: den 11 juni 2020 15:04
> To: Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16
> 
> > On 11 Jun, 2020, at 11:23 am, Ingemar Johansson S
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Has this extended beyond the early adopter do-it-your-self community?.
> > I recall from earlier in this long tread that you found off the shelf
> > routers in stores, were these shipped and ready with RFC3168 support
> > or was an update necessary to make it RFC3168 capable?.
> 
> Shipped and ready.  They're using essentially the same underlying
> mechanisms as OpenWRT, just with a more refined user configuration
> interface, which includes a setup wizard which walks the user through
> choosing appropriate shaper parameters to go with the AQM.
> 
> In fact I understand quite a few commercial retail products actually run
> OpenWRT off the shelf now, just with a custom user interface.  All of
these
> implement RFC-3168, but may require hand configuration to make it
> effective.  I'm talking specifically about a subset of these which mention
> Smart Queue Management or an equivalent term on the retail packaging,
> and have therefore made this feature easily accessible to the end user.
> 
> As Sebastian mentioned, the IQrouter fits in this category.  It is an
> outstanding example which actually probes the line over a period of
several
> days, to determine a shaping schedule which matches diurnal variations in
> line capacity.  Under the covers, it is OpenWRT with some customisations,
> running on a normal CPE wifi router.
> 
> Understand that products like this are needed only because most ISPs and
> modem vendors have made absolutely no effort to tackle bufferbloat at
> more appropriate locations in the network - not even using
packet-dropping,
> ECN-ignorant AQMs.  I note that ISPs' voices, as opposed to those of
> equipment vendors belonging to one particular industry organisation, were
> conspicuously absent from those calling for L4S to move forward here.
> 
>  - Jonathan Morton