From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp68.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp68.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.68]) (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 E4CE13BA8E for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp25.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp25.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9916F205FF; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:28:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Auth-ID: jf@jonathanfoulkes.com Received: by smtp25.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: jf-AT-jonathanfoulkes.com) with ESMTPSA id 468F9202C0; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:28:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: jf@jonathanfoulkes.com Received: from jonathans-mbp.lan (h118.214.20.98.static.ip.windstream.net [98.20.214.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.7.12); Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:28:42 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\)) From: Jonathan Foulkes In-Reply-To: <7412ADED-D1F3-4C15-9703-0977E087013B@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:28:41 -0400 Cc: ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1E80578D-A589-4CA0-9015-B03B63042355@gmx.de> <27FA673A-2C4C-4652-943F-33FAA1CF1E83@gmx.de> <1552669283.555112988@apps.rackspace.com> <7412ADED-D1F3-4C15-9703-0977E087013B@gmail.com> To: Jonathan Morton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:05:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] [Bloat] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104 X-BeenThere: ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of explicit congestion notification's impact on the Internet List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 20:28:43 -0000 All this discussion of DSCP marking brings to mind what happened on the = Windows platform, where the OS had to suppress ALL DSCP marks, as app = authors were trying to game the system. And even if not trying to =E2=80=98game=E2=80=99 it, they have = non-obvious reasons why they don=E2=80=99t mark traffic how one would = expect. Example: I know an engineer who works at a cloud-storage solution company, and I = asked why a long-standing customer request for DSCP marking (as bulk) = was not implemented. His answer was they=E2=80=99d never do that, as = that would impact benchmarks against their competitors for which service = syncs faster. Which brings me to a question: Is anyone aware of an easy to use Windows = app that will allow the user to select an application and tell the OS to = mark the traffic (all or by port) with a user selected DSCP level? There are many guides on using regedit and other error-prone (and = geek-only) means of doing this, but is there a simple Windows 10 home = app? Now that Cake is out there with simple DiffServ3 support, it would be = nice to lower the priority of cloud-storage services and other bulk = traffic by correctly marking it at the origin.=20 Cheers, Jonathan Foulkes > On Mar 15, 2019, at 3:32 PM, Jonathan Morton = wrote: >=20 >> On 15 Mar, 2019, at 8:36 pm, Mikael Abrahamsson = wrote: >>=20 >> Having a "lower-than-best-effort" diffserve codepoint might work, = because it means worse treatment, not preferential treatment. >>=20 >> The problem with having DSCP CPs that indicate preferential treatment = is typically a ddos magnet. >=20 > This is true, and also why I feel that just 2 bits should be = sufficient for Diffserv (rather than 6). They are sufficient to express = four different optimisation targets: >=20 > 0: Maximum Throughput (aka Best Effort) > 1: Minimum Cost (aka Least Effort) > 2: Minimum Latency (aka Maximum Responsiveness) > 3: Minimum Loss (aka Maximum Reliability) >=20 > It is legitimate for traffic to request any of these four = optimisations, with the explicit tradeoff of *not* necessarily getting = optimisation in the other three dimensions. >=20 > The old TOS spec erred in specifying 4 non-exclusive bits to express = this, in addition to 3 bits for a telegram-office style "priority level" = (which was very much ripe for abuse if not strictly = admission-controlled). TOS was rightly considered a mess, but was = replaced with Diffserv which was far too loose a spec to be useful in = practice. >=20 > But that's a separate topic from ECN per se. >=20 > - Jonathan Morton >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat