I thought I saw a reference to an OpenWRT implementation with L4S. How well does that work?
Gene ---------------------------------------------- Eugene Chang > On May 7, 2024, at 9:46 AM, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Pete heist, jon morton, and rod grimes published a TON of research as > to where l4s went wrong in these github repos: > > https://github.com/heistp > > The last was: > https://github.com/heistp/l4s-tests?tab=readme-ov-file#key-findings > > They were ignored. Me, I had taken one look at it 7+ years ago and > said this cannot possibly work with the installed base of wifi > properly and since 97E% of all home connections terminate in that it > was a dead horse which they kept flogging. > > After the L4S RFCs were published they FINALLY took their brands of > wishful thinking to actually exploring what happeed on real wifi > networks, and... I have no idea where that stands today. Yes a custom > wifi7 AP and presumably wifi8 will be able to deal with it, but > everything from the backoff mechanisms in the e2e TCP Prague code and > the proposed implementations on routers just plain does not work > except in a testbed. Fq_codel outperforms it across the board with > perhaps, some increased sensivity to RFC3168 seems needed only. L4S > (all transports actually) benefits a lot from packet pacing, and... > wait for it... fq) > > Slow start and convergence issues are problematic also with l4s. > > Being backward incompatible with fq_codel's deployed treatment of RFC3168 ECN. > is a huge barrier too. > > The best use case I can think of for l4s is on a tightly controlled > docsis network, pure wires and short RTTs only. The one implementation > for 5G I have heard of was laughable in that they were only aiming for > 200ms of induced latency on that. > > If on the other hand you look at fq (and also how well starlink is > performing nowadays) and ccs like bbr, well... > > I do honestly think there is room for this sort of signalling > somewhere on the internet, and do plan to add what I think will work > to cake at some point in the future. I do wish SCE had won, as it was > backwards compatible. > > > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 12:15 PM Jeremy Austin <jer...@aterlo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 11:11 AM Dave Taht via Starlink >> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >>> >>> The RFC is very plausible but the methods break down in multiple ways, >>> particularly with wifi. >> >> >> Dave, can you elaborate more on the failures? Are these being researched or >> addressed in the current trials, in your opinion? >> >> Jeremy > > > > -- > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVFWSyMp3xg&t=1098s Waves Podcast > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
