SQM infront of a Mesh?

[atwok]

Hi. I have the following setup:

docis 3.1 cable modem (modem only) <-wire-> linksys router running openwrt SQM <-wire-> OrbiRBK50 in bridge mode two obri satellites bunch of laptops, xbox, roku, etc

I'm using the wireless backhaul between each satellite and the main orbi router, which is in bridge mode.

Can SQM on the open wrt router account for any bufffering that is happening within the mesh itself? When I'm on a video call or playing games, the latency is never as low and consist as I'm hoping to achive.

One obvious optimization is to set up ethernet backhaul between each orbi satellite and the main orbi router (which again is just bridging).

Also I currently have no control of whether a wireless device connects to the main Orbi router via wifi or one of the satellites so some devices have an extra hops and some dont.

Is a set up like this asking SQM to do too much work on it's own. Can it behave in such a way that its keeping the mesh from buffering at random? My assumption is no, but I wanted to check anyway.

My internet connection is 200/10 from Specturm Business if that affects the answer.

Thanks!

Atwok

[slh]

@atwok

Can SQM on the open wrt router account for any bufffering that is happening within the mesh itself?

No, well, in theory, it could, but wireless link speeds and packet drops are highly volatile, even for the backhaul and static locations this wouldn't work (aside from the 'slight' problem that SQM would have to work on the wrong side of the link).

@atwok

Is a set up like this asking SQM to do too much work on it's own.

Yes, this is functionally impossible - at least in practice[0].

--
[0] assuming unlimited tinkering, of course this would be possible - by setting the limits well below worst-possible parameters (to the extent of making this unreasonable) - and adding an OpenWrt device doing SQM between clients (respectively on the clients) and the APs; and sure, you wouldn't ever be allowed to move around or switch on the microware oven. Furthermore you'd suddenly have to consider the aggregate throughput and stay even -significantly- below that. Possible, but totally unreasonable.