From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 527AF3BA8E; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 14:08:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9C93FB2; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 19:07:58 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1552673278; bh=tcXvyaGn9/QyGTUQ3bS9Xosft9jim9/aROpyUiDQRSw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=b+KMUOHbOCiOR1ROGx+R26uhXQyVhxsbJtMJ2OTSIQiOyBlu4g4RIR3D0MYyICsuJ JER+oI5AaQkpSZih8X+cXxEnAWZmYVlCWW3knENiNmlcjMr0R8ZmccmbjJ9yGZTA67 Dpj9aUzYltLjc3frTscW7YDxjBGVX3oCWZ4pFbdA= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC77AF; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 19:07:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 19:07:58 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht cc: Sebastian Moeller , ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1E80578D-A589-4CA0-9015-B03B63042355@gmx.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Ecn-sane] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104 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: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 18:08:00 -0000 On Fri, 15 Mar 2019, Dave Taht wrote: > It appears, also, ironically, (I have confirmation from several sources > now) that cake, fq_codel and dualpi are now illegal for an ISP to use in > their provided equipment under california law. The idea of one day > having to appear in court to defend our key algorithms reminds me of the > famous john fogerty case where he demonstrated how blues music was made. I would love to know more about this. Running an AQM on the customer access that doesn't prioritize some specific service should be fine, ie it doesn't explicitly do something the *customer* doesn't benefit from. Net neutrality should be about what the ISP does to benefit itself, not what is done on the customer access line (the scheduler per customer) that just looks at packet flow characteristics and isn't configured to prioritize any specific content (src/destination/port etc). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se