From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x234.google.com (mail-qt0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::234]) (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 2A6863B29E for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 21:08:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x234.google.com with SMTP id d3so1315193qth.8 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:08:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OiW3VW9N+nBICBkZQBrRp/VzM/aSvX1J7XKg0VcGOe4=; b=nN1l4tGY3YdFnxLeGYABg7t4AkeqSly3W8GHJ236FJiZnMEqxzZlxeiRsddnNV4mi8 ykRMkZMjLyHdm+l7eemNK9gwwu0W8NKyyYhmLhbOaXC9rulx9C2MLTvW7LF5SPJ2PyBy 1FlQWiTt3Rl+AGijUmIxuI+LVImJSlR2e3Yk/nbLm6VL8MD8Y1h6SNoFf0KoZz6c/ztR 5qqf8s7EhlQCxKU4mLm3TOgi//eMDFZlkI9gnD1YwL7ENOHrkMcK7lvjq5prhHdnrSv/ JM1SdvmOPz5ZP7t7ENiaBoCbi7BnEH8t6LMa1XvtPXTcmOwpJB+5ketbyE1F/pIGVo+F bv9Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OiW3VW9N+nBICBkZQBrRp/VzM/aSvX1J7XKg0VcGOe4=; b=Qi15ha5b6JJp0BJMJ0qRkTO+24moBckEsbqI7g3zsYJ3hIV22wt0hkbTPTqZD8sWcJ /DoeQgJmQuuhWoU9xL72Be2wnAFI2yASy0/+VafevcobesaZ3CGZJnCjBZe59NyN5HNL p19/dEujiaO0dbMvwgg5JmK7FCf3NIkIJVWQ28PXEHWj54CfygP+fnoGenNoM4IVP/HW dxZy4YAaJOl9wezp6VDVrrO2/Rtg2H7XzXNvS3WpD2bNWMN7r6VbicnBO9dqMAPGhFb4 K49xweLe2UmH0mF08PCInDHOSdrjJBjuvQxxj7OzKxq3qTZdLdBLUK2zc/cCbP7YiIPA 99eQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBh+NEyUsjRA+WaftOi2E2NQSeTiBrp4GHlhfdd1GrdaG4Qy3pp UVfQrsl34UmQLhcoCueqrxgxHozGWdAxxnzU+3g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx497EIML51vS+MFF6xnbcnLD1/fX37ju5zR1IvOJDio07ormimCz4myF8PmmKY+ou7hSE/1rfcR7wBTAn5u7pU4= X-Received: by 10.200.64.70 with SMTP id j6mr8651394qtl.321.1522285680657; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:08:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.148.218 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:07:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87k1twgpsy.fsf@toke.dk> <0FDFC78B-95A4-4A4E-8498-6C4AC9610BD0@gmail.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:07:59 -0700 Message-ID: To: Jonathan Morton Cc: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= , Cake List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] bufferbloat still misunderstood & ignored X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 01:08:01 -0000 I so wish that the network nuetrality debate included discussions such as t= hese. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 5:53 PM, Jonathan Morton wr= ote: >> On 29 Mar, 2018, at 3:26 am, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> A finicky bit would be who to penalize when the underlying medium >> (shared cable) is oversubscribed. > > Two obvious reasonable solutions: share equally per subscriber, or share = proportionately to provisioned bandwidth per subscriber. Either should be = fairly straightforward to implement in an integrated qdisc, and either woul= d penalise the (instantaneously) heaviest users before affecting normal or = light users. > > Equal sharing has the interesting side-effect that subscribers on lower t= iers don't notice backhaul congestion at all until higher tiers have been f= orced down to their level. This potentially gives ISPs an incentive to avo= id such extreme congestion (by upgrading backhaul to match demand), since r= ational customers won't pay for bandwidth they can't use. It also ensures = that all subscribers retain a reasonable, basic level of service during abn= ormal congestion events. > > Conversely, proportional sharing might give a perverse incentive, since p= aying more gives a larger share of the pie, no matter how cramped it is. A= rtificial scarcity could then be used to aid up-selling in an anti-consumer= manner, similar to what's been seen with Netflix. It would be naive to as= sume that ISPs won't do this, given the opportunity, so it would be better = to build only the more consumer-friendly option into the software. > > Theoretically, a middle ground could be to assign a sharing weight separa= tely from the provisioned bandwidth. This would permit, for example, subsc= ribers provisioned at 100:1 bandwidths to receive 4:1 service under congest= ed conditions. However, this would be under ISPs' control and fully docume= nted, and would therefore be a little too tempting to abuse. > > - Jonathan Morton > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619