addresses in traffic shaping rules for IPv6?

[defaultuserfoo]

You do not implement shaping to achieve higher results in a throughput oriented speed test. That's not possible. If the provider's network or some interchange is not grossly oversubscribed you will max out your local link, anyway.

The intention of shaping is to be able to do a video conference while a speed test (or multiple bulk downloads for that matter) is running without getting flaky video or audio.

And you do sacrifice a little bit of your peak bandwidth for that, yes.

Kind regards,
Patrick

I agree.  That's an example for one of the cases where traffic shaping may have benefits; only I never had such a case.  Should I come across one, traffic shaping would probably the first thing I'd try.

[Seimus]

By saying that you need 'proper BW sizing' you're implying that you may need more bandwidth because traffic shaping doesn't help when you don't have enough bandwidth.  So we don't disagree other than that I have never actually seen any effects of traffic shaping that would make it worthwhile to use it.

No. I am not implying such thing. You are just cherry picking without understanding the context.

Shaping and QoS as such is here to manage and handle states of congestion. Of course if you are constantly saturated, than increase of BW is needed. Yet Shaping/QoS still helps a lot even in such case to keep the congestion under check. E.g not to have the latency go high-wire and prevent a particular stream/application to eat into others.

I don't doubt that some implementation of traffic shaping does what the implementation is supposed to do.  That can be tested in a lab environment.

What I'm not seeing is a benefit in practise, outside some lab environment, with internet connections you can get from some ISP.  I'm also not saying that there can't be benefits in cases in which there are benefits, only I've never come across such a case.

And as long as I don't see any benefit from traffic shaping I don't see why I should bother to use it.

This is funny, because particular CoDel, FQ_C and CAKE all were not only tested in LAB environment but as well on an asymmetrical Internet circuits. The whole point of these algorithms is to deal with bufferbloat (latency) on such a usecase. Further more LibreQoS, is a deployment for ISPs to handle bufferbloat (latency) in their networks on grand Scale.

If you dont see any benefit when using it, well I guess nice! Most likely your ISP has enough capacity or is properly handling bufferbloat in background. Yet this is your experience and usecase, this doesn't cover everyone else whom has problems with bufferbloat and latency.


If you don't see any benefit you are free not to use it, as already mentioned.

But stating Shaper/QoS is usless is just nonsense.

Regards,
S.