From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D2E83B2A4 for ; Mon, 24 May 2021 10:51:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id i9so41048596lfe.13 for ; Mon, 24 May 2021 07:51:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=a0f2UwJUF3aSFO6fx4+0ut14pd1i+uUCZ/jpuYXE9YM=; b=lI0HPuutV2nxmjtIGRLuAr7o8q0lV+V2F2cszn6f1RkwA88oHeUpivoDkxqw0lqzoV RoC+jJkQ5nUZEzKuASRMIHOkNYKjIY35qBEDV+cA6urut368R8HYwL+EPtPqXji9W+ex ZRmQYn0KwcKopR42pn5piphp8jOWCAOsik9kGILgh9S/czXaytn9jtIPSSt982N3wjLC rTL/WUuDculb1+ysBn/TqY1CrdVlsFo1gls2eE6Yx9Ku4E7G6/hKFet770geKzEFLQ0W LTQMGzG+sxH3DfCGs0F7CF7tOuBjF1aDGPIpXv5u56sa2Sp2f2G5R21sZKuhR+vA4+hF lyUQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=a0f2UwJUF3aSFO6fx4+0ut14pd1i+uUCZ/jpuYXE9YM=; b=Ncjf+L0cpvB4hCMut0FFO4SUgwF3q+cDOFR2ovWs19VEH66iOwiAn+8dZfCK5bgQJg J4+83NEyt3KqGqv/6PVUtQY/8p3lcjr4PC0pRJ4OUjjupxS92JHVCO65VBrWB7MEEjO/ T8JoxBkBV8LiedPb9OE6YEF/It5uU9ZaUJyZ2gb8wbEXtk0+EBA8uQl6QJSe5GAJ6S+u WgKWcVY3F8AVMBiMvwRYe+YQIeSt+Tj4dm55O+87ZQUB+2yQrECNIHpv7ffxW/+LHr69 Bz0Uy0MPEyPnr7+KTPgOwk1aX2ZU0RKc0rolOCeDYPJJgrXgAwiAfxGKvx3tTT243b+h lVNA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532v+4VeZSbLTJU2k/soAFguJhfLL9brKo83m62tHvmMSW3sEknn LjSYSli2klvoqgD7c/zhI10= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzMrcitRSVJvskls/2PRxkl2ASeXKd/GSIPQhb48ZH6+R9MntJXcR6B7KRxKZlWZCB5YqHq9g== X-Received: by 2002:a19:f017:: with SMTP id p23mr10581111lfc.451.1621867912861; Mon, 24 May 2021 07:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (37-136-237-77.rev.dnainternet.fi. [37.136.237.77]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f2sm1721515ljg.13.2021.05.24.07.51.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 24 May 2021 07:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <9CDBF19A-C131-4497-9456-285343F93787@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 17:51:51 +0300 Cc: "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <8CA408F6-C8FA-4AAF-908A-B52BDC5030FF@cable.comcast.com> <9CDBF19A-C131-4497-9456-285343F93787@gmail.com> To: "Livingood, Jason" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7) Subject: Re: [Bloat] AQM & Net Neutrality 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: Mon, 24 May 2021 14:51:54 -0000 >> Maybe the worries I have heard just points out the need for more = education/awareness about what delay is and why things like AQM are not = prioritization/QoS? I appreciate any thoughts. >=20 > I'm pleased to help with education in this area. The short and = simplistic answer would be that AQM treats all traffic going through it = equally; the non-interactive traffic *also* sees a reduction in latency; = though many people won't viscerally notice this, they can observe it if = they look closely. More importantly, it's not necessary for traffic to = make any sort of business or authentication arrangement in order to = benefit from AQM, only comply with existing, well-established = specifications as they already do. There is one more point I'd like to touch on up front. Net Neutrality = first became a concern with file-sharing "swarm" protocols, and then = with video-on-demand services. The common feature of these from a = technical perspective, is high utilisation of throughput capacity, to = the detriment of other users sharing the same back-end and head-end ISP = infrastructure. Implementing AF-AQM or FQ-AQM within the backhaul and head-end = equipment, not to distinguish individual 5-tuple flows but merely = traffic associated with different subscribers, would fairly share out = back-end and head-end capacity between subscribers. This would reduce = the pressure on the ISP to implement policies and techniques that = violate Net Neutrality and/or are otherwise unpopular with consumers, = such as data caps. This assumes (as I believe has been represented in = some official forums) that these measures are due to technical needs = rather than financial greed. I'm aware of some reasonably fast equipment that already implements = AF-AQM commercially. My understanding is that similar functionality can = also be added to many recent cable head-ends by a firmware upgrade. - Jonathan Morton=