From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8DC73B29D; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 16:06:02 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1695931555; x=1696536355; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=Ga9Dzv1uJHeSlqoW3mpoOk0FnWfQCd4wCPKVyic5Ur8=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=tfvYh9iYd0VIEEqCEpPQ3L6U8RmkHsAe40UTYzmhSxY//2LhCztW8EPh7YS0rmkUiinRjQ/7RRZ oKCW8q+jVSRQcqyAUHNCBk13ITUs5VOr7cj9LQJvZO9sgk6R6NkoEQ+uwmqow/6IJnWurx1u0CFDY QXdN5xhrEoP57q+uO0x03V2P1+ush5/aFxUcN4GYRkZbFlvIiG/YPBkxBm03hFthL6s8dg68CAPHh R/UqsRzeeLZzoCMdGBMIk4Tc8MSR8+WLrtAXJtPEaGUX5dbxJSPj0dNjMmyf5RHJYDXzcNlK8KyQV cpaNHNywK/gAPFtjfxqhGK5NA2OENX0BsQtQ== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.3.239.225]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MJmKX-1r5P222PKT-00K72n; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 22:05:55 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <6EB2C99F-471B-4CD9-87A9-080A84A107B8@cable.comcast.com> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 22:05:54 +0200 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Dave_T=C3=A4ht?= , Dave Taht via Starlink , Rpm , Jamal Hadi Salim , bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <60FB20DE-CCA2-4D0C-8852-93CEC5B4535B@gmx.de> References: <6EB2C99F-471B-4CD9-87A9-080A84A107B8@cable.comcast.com> To: "Livingood, Jason" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:Ze10L1/Vfd0lbYFmGhXyj8XmMN/87X/L117oD93EGIPJO7rM+PW 9ccFvsZvv+EXnfavNZP6Q4ezh/gkhDYEolPNaEwDJUu2Twy38iaMeSveJdTiL38OmwfbOHM V+fJHnaUn/9cQGAQdfnUuAoe3dCHQJC9rbP2ISMsQn4FWrjgAG3HKdrAnHCTir/imkKF1OQ NVmiLHahCPRSibEJludNA== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:sUvFlzFyrEQ=;LYnMm6EANDaanuTm6zustzc4UWR /pra7zvaHXm7o4Pr82cLJe/0zxpzsHuyi5LTj9dqvpbpa4EhkyYnPcw3nAoHZ1LmIwnyZe+ht aHrU//E/fVSq8YnR/GFY7oG4jjvdwz7/5lNjTEA9SeY+c9kiWOTNGChHitNiQgR++2n+eEQkU ghOguxlJ2WTJzu0KC84Q5AIQnitHEIIlsSN356wgeDPsCcYzZ9/vv/Nhp6OXAogTapIOBVkmJ M/Ai4xg+S3/QwTbNxymjEaB0IeSfIK0HsYOtlzI8pYBWBXneB7tNUgGGotTrVYmeQBncg87eW cpp5KYrWGmUHIsB1xm/WFIoO9mu+cHW5zyyeoYNGlWcJCr3gl4st7C2i4kKZnPwQBKb8PGpVa BjqKV39y0eik9GrNZiBwunrfvLIBOnSt3Gtcw/mcPCffdpu4fWnac0UKq0p7wG/h6OT2gkNSk bzKuI8zYATQOHEUelzmV3yzmXKlh/Z9oxji6/2VymKYZtCJ2pBnhmeST6rzRXuDpwZxAIMFFW wq60pmMoKL13VdyHc5lUI8qn9CGCGa4AwN52LUWteDG8jFbGb1cgaagWG5mHkhOQCswmC5fAS SjeZbjeay5hPn00yQ0BbKBi4Re0yYsIJgmZWOj1qPnkMMzq0DXg4lTztzCg8gDJxJJhzboF7q LMbY7aiS8gvelb7sUIdcFuofAfXolPoijC/V8hBDsWYrtnueVVrBlwVeZSU+GnV8ZNj1aM5OF PTTcyWEYicMIstESOC8wEoRZQOibV6Q39roBr2ociUpxStM7OvgpFie9BpZ2rbLZ1HmpIubK+ oW2AAbfaAuux6IKO2T75fGtGImzmb8LHWfCjXkeQufVnzBd6pBM/lPzpRG/qwLJctrZAkI0fc X8qHZ941O+qEIQwpH1h7YrrRFll8abmGtp+ravSP85QHUKQO+d68SvKQJQWAXI+dXeOxjPp7/ LwCFpA== Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 20:06:03 -0000 Hi Jason, thanks for giving some perspective. > On Sep 28, 2023, at 19:10, Livingood, Jason = wrote: >=20 > On 9/28/23, 02:25, "Bloat on behalf of Sebastian Moeller via Bloat" = on behalf of = bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > wrote: >> But the core issue IMHO really was an economic one, the = over-subscription ratios that worked before torrenting simply did not = cut it any more in an environment when customers actually tried to use = their contracted access rates "quantitatively".=20 >=20 > It was more complicated than that. At least in cable networks it came = at the end of single channel DOCSIS 2.0 devices, as cable upgraded to = channel bonding in DOCSIS 3.0 - which to your point brought dramatic = increases in capacity. That was happening at the same time P2P was = becoming popular. On the other hand, customers were congesting their own = connections pretty pervasively - trying to use VoIP while their P2P = client was active. At the time the P2P protocol tended to be pretty = aggressive and smothered real-time apps (if you gave the client 1 Mbps = US it would use it, if 10 Mbps - used that 100% as well, 25 Mbps - same, = etc.).=20 [SM] Thanks! I will adjust my position ("mainly too much = oversubscription") to give at least equal weight to self-congesation by = overly aggressive new application types, simply because you have likely = seen internal data demonstrating that and I fully believe your summary. > The answer ended up being a mix of more capacity, apps being more = responsive to other LAN demands, and then advancements in congestion = control & queuing. But there were many customers who were basically = self-congesting w/P2P and VoIP running in their home.=20 [SM] So is it fair to say that the problam was also caused by a = rapidly change in usage profiles or was that the smaller problem, if at = all a problem? >=20 >> but this is why e.g. my bit torrent could affect your VoIP, simply by = pushing the whole segment into upload capacity congestion... (ISPs in = theory could fix this by plain old QoS engineering, but the issue at = hand was with a non-ISP VoIP/SIP service and there QoS becomes tricky if = the ISP as these packets need to be identified in a way that is not = game-able**) >=20 > Sure - for their own (nascent & small scale) digital voice products. = But to 3rd party VoIP - no one then was really doing inter-domain DSCP = marking end-to-end (still are not). The non-ISP offering here was the = big driver of consumer complaints. [SM] I accept that this was not a clear and simple solution, = just that it would have been technically possible (just infeasible as it = likely would have required multiple SLA's between all pairs of partner's = to "secure" the full path? >> ****) This is not to diss the press, they are doing what they are = supposed to do, but it just shows that active regulation is a tricky = business, and a light touch typically "looks better" (even though I see = no real evidence it actually works better). >=20 > It's not made easier in the US where one can strongly support formal = national NN rules but be against putting it under Title-II regulation = vs. Title-I. IANAL so cannot properly explain the nuances. [SM] Same here, the legal nuances are lost on me as well, = especially about noticeably different legal systems like the US' = compared to home (were I am also not a legal expert, but were I have = read a few laws and regulations). Also I assume that the whole issue = would look quite different from an ISP perspective, nobody likes having = their option space restricted for the acts of a few bad apples... > Ultimately legislation is the best solution, as this will just be in = the courts for years, but our US Congress is not the most functional = body these days and people have tried to do legislation for many years.=20= [SM] Proper legislation has the advantage of offering a fair = playing field for all ISPs, and after the unavoidable initial tire = kicking by the courts will hopefully be robust and reliable.=20 >=20 > Jason >=20