From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d]) (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 944A23B2A4 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 14:58:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com with SMTP id o70so9290032yba.7 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 11:58:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WsqDN3i2P71EkSDbIvLmUOom2JjhqdmlseVKp2GD1YE=; b=CBAM2T9GSO3cvc+6J7aGS4/jSAAlqc1bBDomlx2SORcwViR56NrbHKG+DLD308i2jL UennLIvcIzqYlhyce7CDn/k7SeUlBg6xPGe0L3cLr9F54+R6sr0BVwnZlPTtLv3uuMfC JPjmY2FuCuXdnPks8BG7ongKE3vI82wn0q/ARbB0LTyZqlvoY0nnMZnAWaHYlT4mjmAL 5Dr7uANPRMA8iJn4YxA3QGHhUbyCYV8rmNQcjMvzWP00TK8Q3bojT/2AKrEcpD8z+VDK 0bVSI3LayzlXo8Y20e3NqWWwQ1E1Vwysrn6b4VMuZnRnM/PvEBP04fDkDI3nbPS1Ly16 0KFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=WsqDN3i2P71EkSDbIvLmUOom2JjhqdmlseVKp2GD1YE=; b=7/bKaK+JKHzMEyLyhtiZXtZwQWid3rL+ihyls8IHD75j0teHiblKu7ThvyRX7DDSju 9FxJVymBK7n+6Vnd5sXz80bXb6M2Ta0Qs2z8Y2XIVoH8a0QOrTJvZwCQj1YLUiRySLvd LXTB7u4NJTE0VrlXFKRi4JBpXf/+RQmAv3YCH1TKez3aQF+/4BHW+rQipYykziz3kBmG nOHYA40BsOBbtFq5GrRepy/DPW1TxVPZReh44HaefMTQaLpelIOkUIEs+O42Yc23BR9A o+QEeL6C5tXs1t4RY0V93L/rvDT+iGFKZsQlFCxNyPbq+rCHekkFy3T9mriRTw7NFo1x a7uw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pmYX5Ey6SO9t7CnDfv9KvQqtlyPUNu6fULVQlHiTRMxr6pdzEhZ QlgZ52OxFzLCQN+UWz1mqmzHbQ5nZI8zESYGK5k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf4QJ0OLqWAUqYk0RG+J7Cku2Qp6MXx9OM0iTKW8eqLS7hk7D9aOG8wjSJnjfqdn5E1YrPO4BjPFgEc35STXSDg= X-Received: by 2002:a25:bfc9:0:b0:6de:1e6f:85c7 with SMTP id q9-20020a25bfc9000000b006de1e6f85c7mr6897050ybm.495.1668283107706; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 11:58:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <938D9D45-DADA-4291-BD8A-84E4257CEE49@apple.com> In-Reply-To: From: dan Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 12:58:16 -0700 Message-ID: To: Dave Taht Cc: Herbert Wolverson , libreqos , Sascha Meinrath Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000050e7b05ed4b6e52" Subject: Re: [LibreQoS] Various aspects of net neutrality X-BeenThere: libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Many ISPs need the kinds of quality shaping cake can do List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 19:58:28 -0000 --000000000000050e7b05ed4b6e52 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think the argument you site is a difficult one, it's not without merits but it's also likely the losing position ultimately. There's no clear cut "you took something away from the consumer" bit in there that would trigger most consumer protection triggers. ANY legislation that doesn't have a clear case for public benefit can be endlessly attacked and special exemptions to it made on every win against it. Makes it something most lawmakers cringe at the thought of dealing with for an issue that isn't in the headlines ie doesn't help them get (or lose) votes. I think the middle ground is actually really simple. Opt-In or Opt-Out. Hook up new service and in the installation checklist there's a "we offer connection enhancements free of charge, can I enable that for you?". All consumer protections are out when the customer agrees. Even Cambium/Bequant is perfectly legal in California if the customer opts-in to it (I don't believe you can do opt-out in California's language). Then in libreQOS or whatever just have an option to use a fifo instead of fq_codel or cake. Most people will take that without question, some might ask what it is and it's pretty easy to explain that it makes sure all their stuff gets a fair share of the connection instead of the Xbox downloads causing Netflix to buffer. fifo buffers hurt the consumer, not the operator, and we can always just turn it on when they call in "would you like to try the enhanced service to see if that makes things better?" We've actually considered offering service plans based around it. I was looking at both PQ and Cambium pretty hard and in that would offer 'NN' packages and then 'Enhanced' with a number of bulletpoints for customers. ie, NN is a 100x20 bare connection (fifo...) while the same price could get a 200x100 enhanced (AQM) that would cap streaming lower and elevate gaming etc. All in the open and opt-in via the purchase of the 'enhancement' on the service. Ultimately, the lack of top level shapers as table stakes is what got me into libreqos in the first place. On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 12:31 PM Dave Taht wrote: > Changing the subject line. This is a very nuanced topic and I would > rather enjoy the day AFK! To stir the pot, tho: > > I have had a cable industry insider claim that fq_codel violated the > california code you cite. Wrote about it here: > > https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/net_neutrality_customers/ > > And taking on the other side: > > https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/net_neutrality_isps/ > > I have asked multiple lawyers about it since, and the rules need to be > clarified, here. The level of doublethink in the cable/telco industry > about NN has to be experienced to be believed. Just spent 6 years > losing a fight about it on l4s and related, so now they can hide > behind the IETFs skirts now. > > I didn't make friends with any side that way, and of my relationship > from that period, with the eff and the ACLU, I don't know... but I did > write a nice piece of rhetoric: > > "fq codel (now IETF standard RFC8290) is a uniquely =E2=80=9CAmerican=E2= =80=9D > algorithm. It gives the =E2=80=9Clittle guy=E2=80=9D - the little packet,= the first > packets in a new connection to anywhere, a little boost until the flow > achieves parity with other flows from other sources, with minimal > buffering. This means that all network traffic gets treated equally - > faster. Isn=E2=80=99t that what you want in a network neutral framework? = DNS, > gaming traffic, voip, videoconferencing, and the first packets of any > new flow, to anywhere, get a small boost. That=E2=80=99s it. Big flows - = from > anybody - from netflix to google to comcast - all achieve parity, with > minimal delay and buffering, at a wide variety of real round trip > times." > > Just to throw another bit of controversial thought before I gaily > depart for a nice lunch... I tended to support WISPA's non-defense of > NN > in multiple respects. Title II, and additional regulation seemed > worse, then, than having some mildly chastized ISPs remain free to do > whatever they wanted. With my brutal experiences with politics > starting with the clipper chip, the CDA, SOPA, network neutrality, and > of late the NTIA broadband funds act.... > > My basic conclusion was this: > > There must be a middle path, and it starts with less lawyers being in > charge at the FCC and extends to, in general, less politicians on any > side of the debate, making policy and slogans that don't line up with > reality. > > "For a successful technology .... " - richard feynman. > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 9:39 AM dan via LibreQoS > wrote: > > > > I have to argue with you on 'equally limited' streaming being ok. That > allows for 'internet-like' service but no/poor streaming, a service that > clamps down really hard on streaming and then offers you an upgrade to ma= ke > it work. Neutrality doesn't mean 'kind of' neutral. If it's called > 'Internet' then no specific service or even type of service should be > limited for the provider's direct benefit or whims. I can see no positiv= e > case for a provider limiting any service/type below the customers quoted > service. The provider gets to save money, but since they offer an inferi= or > product that is essentially false advertised and customers have no way to > know this then capitalist tools like consumer choice can't work. Consume= rs > don't know they can get a better suited service, they don't show demand i= n > a market, that prevents competition from having an opportunity, etc. Mo= st > people have just 1 fast internet option. > > > > Does a customer that can't figure out why their new Roku 4K on their ne= w > 4K TV refuses to stream 4K Netflix on their 100M internet service say > "Netflix sucks!". or Roku sucks or Sony sucks or whatever? So this spil= ls > over into making other services take the blame for bad connections. > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 10:19 AM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS < > libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >> > >> Net neutrality is complex (I'm generally in favor of the concept). > There's nothing stopping an ISP from having rules that video streaming be > limited - but ALL video streaming has to be equally limited. So ComCast > could use Sandvine, but only without any vendor-specific limitations. Sam= e > for Cambium. Limit streams that look like video, and you're fine. With th= at > said, it runs into something I say a lot: don't penalize your customers f= or > using your product. If you're buying a 100mbit/s pipe, hooking it to your > fancy 4k streaming system - it's entirely reasonable to expect sharp 4k > video. In fact, your shaping emphasis should be on keeping their video ni= ce > and watchable even though someone just decided to download the newest Cal= l > of Duty, update their xbox, and update the firmware on their smart fridge= . > Likewise, if someone really wants the smallest 5 mbit connection you once > offered - because they only ever use it to check email (we actually had a > customer complain when we offered them a free upgrade from a 5mbit/s plan= , > years ago!) - you want to do your best to make it a usable tiny plan for > them. Fair queuing (along with a bit of user education; we eventually > convinced the customer that "no change in fees" actually meant not chargi= ng > them more money) helps with all of that. > >> > >> It can win customers, too. We have a couple of business customers who > switched us from their backup to their primary because "our service felt > snappier". We had a business go with us because their 24x7 lobby streamin= g > video looked better on our (smaller) connection, and a couple of > fraternities who likewise decided to use us because their overkill 4k vid= eo > setup looked better (even with the 20+ Xboxes we could see on their > network). > >> > >> QUIC makes me chuckle, because it's exactly what we were doing in > gamedev land in the late 90s to make deathmatches run smoothly. (Seriousl= y, > QuakeWorld and the original Unreal Tournament had the most amazing networ= k > code; they basically implemented what is now known as "reliable UDP" to > incredible results). > >> > >> With that said, I think we've got a remarkable amount of wiggle-room t= o > make things better (and it's not at all shoddy right now!). XDP is amazin= g > as-is, and is improving fast. (I'm currently reading > https://github.com/ilejn/xdpbridge - an older project that doesn't seem > to have gained much traction, but I'm wondering if it couldn't provide so= me > seriously fast bridge offloading; I'll have to setup a better test > environment to find out) > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 10:09 AM Robert Chac=C3=B3n via LibreQoS < > libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thank you, Dan. > >>> I completely agree with you 100% there. It's a risky way to save a > tiny amount of money on bandwidth costs. > >>> Comcast paid out $16 million in a settlement over using Sandvine's DP= I > in this way. > >>> Since then, Comcast has switched from DPI to fair queueing with > DOCSIS-pie. > >>> > >>> California's SB-822 will be used as a template by many other states > going forward on Net Neutrality. > >>> SB-822 even clarified that "Reasonable Network Management" needs to b= e > "as application-agnostic as possible". > >>> These DPI approaches like Cambium's will not hold up in court the way > Fair Queuing (Preseem, LibreQoS) based solutions will. > >>> We can point to years of public research and RFCs when defending a > Fair Queuing QoE approach. > >>> They can't so easily defend using a product that advertised its big > "scale down 4k to save money" knob or "accelerate their speeds only when > they run speed tests" button. > >>> It's concerning to me that these QoE vendors are not disclosing "hey, > don't use this in NN states like California please". > >>> The WISP industry will be hurt long-term by these products with > consumers viewing us as an inferior technology that limits their usage in > intrusive ways. > >>> Like you said, let's let them use their plan however they want. It > doesn't hurt us. But things like capping end-users at HD will hurt us > long-term in lost sales. > >>> > >>> Regarding TCP acceleration, I'm leaning toward the argument made by > Dan from Preseem that QUIC adoption is growing pretty quickly and we may > not want to mess with TCP at the expense of UDP given the rise of QUIC. > >>> Cloudlfare says HTTP/3 and QUIC are already at 28% and growing. > >>> One point he brought up is that if we use TCP acceleration, and a > middlebox has to be rebooted or something - all client TCP sessions will > break when OSPF switches paths around the box. > >>> > >>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 8:36 AM dan via LibreQoS < > libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I think there's a thin grey line between what other vendors (paraqum= , > bequant/cambium) and libreQoS is trying to do. The first two are REALLY > pushing this selecting narrowing of traffic and they'll go straight after > streaming for their demos. Most people that drop in the cambium QoE > appliance turn the knobs on Netflix down and then praise the 40% savings = on > their network. Same with PQ. I think this is fundamentally wrong. Thi= s > is the entire reason Net Neutrality keeps popping up. Why does the ISP g= et > to say "You only need 25Mbps for your netflix". That's double wrong if > they offer their own video services. It's not about improving the > customer's experience, it's about spending less on upstream bandwidth at > the customer's expense. As soon as they say 'pays for itself in bandwidt= h > savings' you know what the product is primarily for. > >>>> > >>>> This is why I like the preseem and libreqos model of just using a > 'stock' cake and just finessing the data coming in to keep the pipe from > clogging. Who cares if someone pulls 90M bursts of apple TV+ on their 10= 0M > pipe. Only dial that back so other requests they make get through cleanl= y. > >>>> > >>>> preseem is going more towards wireless monitoring etc and kinda > letting shaping be a secondary.... if they were doing more libreqos like > stuff I'd just stick with preseem. > >>>> > >>>> libreQoS may end up being the best and most net neutral product you > can get. The only current disadvantage (ignoring DPI) is lack of TCP > accelleration that PQ and Bequant/cambium have. > >>>> > >>>> I should add that 3 states already have laws on the books that > straight up make PQ and Cambium's solution illegal because they target > certain services for throttling. My state (Montana) has the same rule > except only when working with a government contract. Libreqos is actuall= y > compliant (as is preseem). > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 8:11 AM Dave Taht via LibreQoS < > libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> this report predates the libreqos list... > >>>>> > >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- > >>>>> From: Dave Taht > >>>>> Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 8:15 PM > >>>>> Subject: A quick report from the WISPA conference > >>>>> To: Sina Khanifar > >>>>> Cc: Cake List , Make-Wifi-fast > >>>>> , Rpm > >>>>> , Stuart Cheshire , > >>>>> bloat > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 7:51 PM Sina Khanifar > wrote: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Positive or negative, I can claim a bit of credit for this video > :). We've been working with LTT on a few projects and we pitched them on > doing something around bufferbloat. We've seen more traffic to our Wavefo= rn > test than ever before, which has been fun! > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you. Great job with that video! And waveform has become the > goto > >>>>> site for many now. > >>>>> > >>>>> I can't help but wonder tho... are you collecting any statistics, > over > >>>>> time, as to how much better the problem is getting? > >>>>> > >>>>> And any chance they could do something similar explaining wifi? > >>>>> > >>>>> ... > >>>>> > >>>>> I was just at WISPA conference week before last. Preseem's booth > >>>>> (fq_codel) was always packed. Vilo living had put cake in their wif= i > 6 > >>>>> product. A > >>>>> keynote speaker had deployed it and talked about it with waveform > >>>>> results on the big screen (2k people there). A large wireless vendo= r > >>>>> demo'd privately to me their flent results before/after cake on the= ir > >>>>> next-gen radios... and people dissed tarana without me prompting fo= r > >>>>> their bad bufferbloat... and the best thing of all that happened to > me > >>>>> was... besides getting a hug from a young lady (megan) who'd salvag= ed > >>>>> her schooling in alaska using sqm - I walked up to the paraqum boot= h > >>>>> (another large QoE middlebox maker centered more in india) and aske= d. > >>>>> > >>>>> "So... do y'all have fq_codel yet?" > >>>>> > >>>>> And they smiled and said: "No, we have something better... we've go= t > cake." > >>>>> > >>>>> "Cake? What's that?" - I said, innocently. > >>>>> > >>>>> They then stepped me through their 200Gbps (!!) product, which uses= a > >>>>> bunch of offloads, and can track rtt down to a ms with the intel > >>>>> ethernet card they were using. They'd modifed cake to provide 16 (?= ) > >>>>> levels of service, and were running under dpdk (I am not sure if ca= ke > >>>>> was). It was a great, convincing pitch... > >>>>> > >>>>> ... then I told 'em who I was. There's a video of the in-both > concert after. > >>>>> > >>>>> ... > >>>>> > >>>>> The downside to me (and the subject of my talk) was that in nearly > >>>>> every person I talked to, fq_codel was viewed as a means to better > >>>>> subscriber bandwidth plan enforcement (which is admittedly the mark= et > >>>>> that preseem pioneered) and it was not understood that I'd got > >>>>> involved in this whole thing because I'd wanted an algorithm to dea= l > >>>>> with "rain fade", running directly on the radios. People wanted to > use > >>>>> the statistics on the radios to drive the plan enforcement better > >>>>> (which is an ok approach, I guess), and for 10+ I'd been whinging > >>>>> about the... physics. > >>>>> > >>>>> So I ranted about rfc7567 a lot and begged people now putting > routerOS > >>>>> 7.2 and later out there (mikrotik is huge in this market), to kill > >>>>> their fifos and sfqs at the native rates of the interfaces... and > >>>>> watch their network improve that way also. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think one more wispa conference will be a clean sweep of everyone > in > >>>>> the fixed wireless market to not only adopt these algorithms for pl= an > >>>>> enforcement, but even more directly on the radios and more CPE. > >>>>> > >>>>> I also picked up enough consulting business to keep me busy the res= t > >>>>> of this year, and possibly more than I can handle (anybody looking?= ) > >>>>> > >>>>> I wonder what will happen at a fiber conference? > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 7:45 PM Dave Taht via Bloat < > bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 5:02 PM Stuart Cheshire < > cheshire@apple.com> wrote: > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > On 9 Oct 2022, at 06:14, Dave Taht via Make-wifi-fast < > make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > This was so massively well done, I cried. Does anyone know > how to get in touch with the ifxit folk? > >>>>> >> > > > >>>>> >> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DUICh3ScfNWI > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > I=E2=80=99m surprised that you liked this video. It seems to m= e that it > repeats all the standard misinformation. The analogy they use is the > standard terrible example of waiting in a long line at a grocery store, a= nd > the =E2=80=9Csolution=E2=80=9D is letting certain traffic =E2=80=9Cjump t= he line, angering everyone > behind them=E2=80=9D. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Accuracy be damned. The analogy to common experience resonates > more. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > Some quotes from the video: > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > it would be so much more efficient for them to let you skip > the line and just check out, especially since you=E2=80=99re in a hurry, = but > they=E2=80=99re rudely refusing > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> I think the person with the cheetos pulling out a gun and shooti= ng > >>>>> >> everyone in front of him (AQM) would not go down well. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > > to go back to our grocery store analogy this would be like i= f > a worker saw you standing at the back ... and either let you skip to the > front of the line or opens up an express lane just for you > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Actually that analogy is fairly close to fair queuing. The > multiple > >>>>> >> checker analogy is one of the most common analogies in queue > theory > >>>>> >> itself. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > The video describes the problem of bufferbloat, and then > describes the same failed solution that hasn=E2=80=99t worked for the las= t three > decades. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Hmm? It establishes the scenario, explains the problem *quickly*= , > >>>>> >> disses gamer routers for not getting it right.. *points to an > >>>>> >> accurate test*, and then to the ideas and products that *actuall= y > >>>>> >> work* with "smart queueing", with a screenshot of the most commo= n > >>>>> >> (eero's optimize for gaming and videoconferencing), and fq_codel > and > >>>>> >> cake *by name*, and points folk at the best known solution > available, > >>>>> >> openwrt. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Bing, baddabang, boom. Also the comments were revealing. A goodl= y > >>>>> >> percentage already knew the problem, more than a few were > inspired to > >>>>> >> take the test, > >>>>> >> there was a whole bunch of "Aha!" success stories and 360k views= , > >>>>> >> which is more people than we've ever been able to reach in for > >>>>> >> example, a nanog conference. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> I loved that folk taking the test actually had quite a few A > results, > >>>>> >> without having had to do anything. At least some ISPs are gettin= g > it > >>>>> >> more right now! > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> At this point I think gamers in particular know what "brands" > we've > >>>>> >> tried to establish - "Smart queues", "SQM", "OpenWrt", fq_codel > and > >>>>> >> now "cake" are "good" things to have, and are stimulating demand > by > >>>>> >> asking for them, It's certainly working out better and better > for > >>>>> >> evenroute, firewalla, ubnt and others, and I saw an uptick in > >>>>> >> questions about this on various user forums. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> I even like that there's a backlash now of people saying "fixing > >>>>> >> bufferbloat doesn't solve everything" - > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Describing the obvious simple-minded (wrong) solution that an= y > normal person would think of based on their personal human experience > waiting in grocery stores and airports, is not describing the solution to > bufferbloat. The solution to bufferbloat is not that if you are privilege= d > then you get to =E2=80=9Cskip to the front of the line=E2=80=9D. The solu= tion to > bufferbloat is that there is no line! > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> I like the idea of a guru floating above a grocery cart with a > better > >>>>> >> string of explanations, explaining > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> - "no, grasshopper, the solution to bufferbloat is no line... > at all". > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > With grocery stores and airports people=E2=80=99s arrivals are > independent and not controlled. There is no way for a grocery store or > airport to generate backpressure to tell people to wait at home when a > queue begins to form. The key to solving bufferbloat is generating timely > backpressure to prevent the queue forming in the first place, not accepti= ng > a huge queue and then deciding who deserves special treatment to get bett= er > service than all the other peons who still have to wait in a long queue, > just like before. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> I am not huge on the word "backpressure" here. Needs to signal t= he > >>>>> >> other side to slow down, is more accurate. So might say timely > >>>>> >> signalling rather than timely backpressure? > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Other feedback I got was that the video was too smarmy (I agree= ), > >>>>> >> different audiences than gamers need different forms of > outreach... > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> but to me, winning the gamers has always been one of the most > >>>>> >> important things, as they make a lot of buying decisions, and th= ey > >>>>> >> benefit the most for > >>>>> >> fq and packet prioritization as we do today in gamer routers and > in > >>>>> >> cake + qosify. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> maybe that gets in the way of more serious markets. Certainly I > would > >>>>> >> like another video explaining what goes wrong with > videoconferencing. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > Stuart Cheshire > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> -- > >>>>> >> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would wor= k: > >>>>> >> > https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-698136666= 5607352320-FXtz > >>>>> >> Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC > >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> >> Bloat mailing list > >>>>> >> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > >>>>> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work: > >>>>> > https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-698136666= 5607352320-FXtz > >>>>> Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work: > >>>>> > https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-698136666= 5607352320-FXtz > >>>>> Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> LibreQoS mailing list > >>>>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net > >>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> LibreQoS mailing list > >>>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net > >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Robert Chac=C3=B3n > >>> CEO | JackRabbit Wireless LLC > >>> Dev | LibreQoS.io > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> LibreQoS mailing list > >>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net > >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> LibreQoS mailing list > >> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LibreQoS mailing list > > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos > > > > -- > This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work: > > https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-698136666= 5607352320-FXtz > Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC > --000000000000050e7b05ed4b6e52 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think the argument you site is a difficult one, it's= not without merits but it's also likely the losing position ultimately= .=C2=A0 There's no clear cut "you took something away from the con= sumer" bit in there that would trigger most consumer protection trigge= rs.=C2=A0 ANY legislation that doesn't have a clear case for public ben= efit can be endlessly attacked and special exemptions to it made on every w= in against it.=C2=A0 Makes it something most lawmakers cringe at the though= t of dealing with for an issue that isn't in the headlines ie doesn'= ;t help them get (or lose) votes.

I think the middle ground is actua= lly really simple.=C2=A0 Opt-In or Opt-Out.=C2=A0 Hook up new service and i= n the installation checklist there's a "we offer connection enhanc= ements free of charge, can I enable that for you?".=C2=A0 All consumer= protections are out when the customer agrees.=C2=A0 Even Cambium/Bequant i= s perfectly legal in California if the customer opts-in to it (I don't = believe you can do opt-out in California's language).=C2=A0 Then in lib= reQOS=C2=A0or whatever just have an option to use a fifo instead of fq_code= l or cake.=C2=A0 Most people will take that without question, some might as= k what it is and it's pretty easy to explain that it makes sure all the= ir stuff gets a fair share of the connection instead of the Xbox downloads = causing Netflix to buffer.=C2=A0 fifo buffers hurt the consumer, not the op= erator, and we can always just turn it on when they call in "would you= like to try the enhanced service to see if that makes things better?"=

We've actually considered offering service plans based around i= t.=C2=A0 I was looking at both PQ and Cambium pretty hard and in that would= offer 'NN' packages and then 'Enhanced' with a number of b= ulletpoints for customers.=C2=A0 ie, NN is a 100x20 bare connection (fifo..= .) while the same price could get a 200x100 enhanced (AQM) that would cap s= treaming lower and elevate gaming etc.=C2=A0 All in the open and opt-in via= the purchase of the 'enhancement' on the service.

Ultimatel= y, the lack of top level shapers as table stakes is what got me into libreq= os in the first place.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 12:31 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
Changing the subject li= ne. This is a very nuanced topic and I would
rather enjoy the day AFK! To stir the pot, tho:

I have had a cable industry insider claim that fq_codel violated the
california code you cite. Wrote about it here:

https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/net_neutrality_= customers/

And taking on the other side:

https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/net_neutrality_isps/=

I have asked multiple lawyers about it since, and the rules need to be
clarified, here. The level of doublethink in the cable/telco industry
about NN has to be experienced to be believed. Just spent 6 years
losing a fight about it on l4s and related, so now they can hide
behind the IETFs skirts now.

I didn't make friends with any side that way, and of my relationship from that period, with the eff and the ACLU, I don't know... but I did<= br> write a nice piece of rhetoric:

"fq codel (now IETF standard RFC8290) is a uniquely =E2=80=9CAmerican= =E2=80=9D
algorithm. It gives the =E2=80=9Clittle guy=E2=80=9D - the little packet, t= he first
packets in a new connection to anywhere, a little boost until the flow
achieves parity with other flows from other sources, with minimal
buffering. This means that all network traffic gets treated equally -
faster. Isn=E2=80=99t that what you want in a network neutral framework? DN= S,
gaming traffic, voip, videoconferencing, and the first packets of any
new flow, to anywhere, get a small boost. That=E2=80=99s it. Big flows - fr= om
anybody - from netflix to google to comcast - all achieve parity, with
minimal delay and buffering, at a wide variety of real round trip
times."

Just to throw another bit of controversial thought before I gaily
depart for a nice lunch... I tended to support WISPA's non-defense of NN
in multiple respects. Title II, and additional regulation seemed
worse, then, than having some mildly chastized ISPs remain free to do
whatever they wanted. With my brutal experiences with politics
starting with the clipper chip, the CDA, SOPA, network neutrality, and
of late the NTIA broadband funds act....

My basic conclusion was this:

There must be a middle path, and it starts with less lawyers being in
charge at the FCC and extends to, in general, less politicians on any
side of the debate, making policy and slogans that don't line up with reality.

"For a successful technology .... " - richard feynman.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 9:39 AM dan via LibreQoS
<lib= reqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> I have to argue with you on 'equally limited' streaming being = ok.=C2=A0 That allows for 'internet-like' service but no/poor strea= ming, a service that clamps down really hard on streaming and then offers y= ou an upgrade to make it work.=C2=A0 Neutrality doesn't mean 'kind = of' neutral.=C2=A0 If it's called 'Internet' then no specif= ic service or even type of service should be limited for the provider's= direct benefit or whims.=C2=A0 I can see no positive case for a provider l= imiting any service/type below the customers quoted service.=C2=A0 The prov= ider gets to save money, but since they offer an inferior product that is e= ssentially false advertised and customers have no way to know this then cap= italist tools like consumer choice can't work.=C2=A0 Consumers don'= t know they can get a better suited service, they don't show demand in = a market, that prevents competition from having an opportunity, etc.=C2=A0 = =C2=A0Most people have just 1 fast internet option.
>
> Does a customer that can't figure out why their new Roku 4K on the= ir new 4K TV refuses to stream 4K Netflix on their 100M internet service sa= y "Netflix sucks!".=C2=A0 or Roku sucks or Sony sucks or whatever= ?=C2=A0 So this spills over into making other services take the blame for b= ad connections.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 10:19 AM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS <libreqos@= lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> Net neutrality is complex (I'm generally in favor of the conce= pt). There's nothing stopping an ISP from having rules that video strea= ming be limited - but ALL video streaming has to be equally limited. So Com= Cast could use Sandvine, but only without any vendor-specific limitations. = Same for Cambium. Limit streams that look like video, and you're fine. = With that said, it runs into something I say a lot: don't penalize your= customers for using your product. If you're buying a 100mbit/s pipe, h= ooking it to your fancy 4k streaming system - it's entirely reasonable = to expect sharp 4k video. In fact, your shaping emphasis should be on keepi= ng their video nice and watchable even though someone just decided to downl= oad the newest Call of Duty, update their xbox, and update the firmware on = their smart fridge. Likewise, if someone really wants the smallest 5 mbit c= onnection you once offered - because they only ever use it to check email (= we actually had a customer complain when we offered them a free upgrade fro= m a 5mbit/s plan, years ago!) - you want to do your best to make it a usabl= e tiny plan for them. Fair queuing (along with a bit of user education; we = eventually convinced the customer that "no change in fees" actual= ly meant not charging them more money) helps with all of that.
>>
>> It can win customers, too. We have a couple of business customers = who switched us from their backup to their primary because "our servic= e felt snappier". We had a business go with us because their 24x7 lobb= y streaming video looked better on our (smaller) connection, and a couple o= f fraternities who likewise decided to use us because their overkill 4k vid= eo setup looked better (even with the 20+ Xboxes we could see on their netw= ork).
>>
>> QUIC makes me chuckle, because it's exactly what we were doing= in gamedev land in the late 90s to make deathmatches run smoothly. (Seriou= sly, QuakeWorld and the original Unreal Tournament had the most amazing net= work code; they basically implemented what is now known as "reliable U= DP" to incredible results).
>>
>> With that said, I think we've got a remarkable amount of wiggl= e-room to make things better (and it's not at all shoddy right now!). X= DP is amazing as-is, and is improving fast. (I'm currently reading https://github.com/ilejn/xdpbridge - an older project that doesn&#= 39;t seem to have gained much traction, but I'm wondering if it couldn&= #39;t provide some seriously fast bridge offloading; I'll have to setup= a better test environment to find out)
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 10:09 AM Robert Chac=C3=B3n via LibreQoS &= lt;libr= eqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you, Dan.
>>> I completely agree with you 100% there. It's a risky way t= o save a tiny amount of money on bandwidth costs.
>>> Comcast paid out $16 million in a settlement over using Sandvi= ne's DPI in this way.
>>> Since then, Comcast has switched from DPI to fair queueing wit= h DOCSIS-pie.
>>>
>>> California's SB-822 will be used as a template by many oth= er states going forward on Net Neutrality.
>>> SB-822 even clarified that "Reasonable Network Management= " needs to be "as application-agnostic as possible".
>>> These DPI approaches like Cambium's will not hold up in co= urt the way Fair Queuing (Preseem, LibreQoS) based solutions will.
>>> We can point to years of public research and RFCs when defendi= ng a Fair Queuing QoE approach.
>>> They can't so easily defend using a product that advertise= d its big "scale down 4k to save money" knob or "accelerate = their speeds only when they run speed tests" button.
>>> It's concerning to me that these QoE vendors are not discl= osing "hey, don't use this in NN states like California please&quo= t;.
>>> The WISP industry will be hurt long-term by these products wit= h consumers viewing us as an inferior technology that limits their usage in= intrusive ways.
>>> Like you said, let's let them use their plan however they = want. It doesn't hurt us. But things like capping end-users at HD will = hurt us long-term in lost sales.
>>>
>>> Regarding TCP acceleration, I'm leaning toward the argumen= t made by Dan from Preseem that QUIC adoption is growing pretty quickly and= we may not want to mess with TCP at the expense of UDP given the rise of Q= UIC.
>>> Cloudlfare says HTTP/3 and QUIC are already at 28% and growing= .
>>> One point he brought up is that if we use TCP acceleration, an= d a middlebox has to be rebooted or something - all client TCP sessions wil= l break when OSPF switches paths around the box.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 8:36 AM dan via LibreQoS <libreqos@lists= .bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think there's a thin grey line between what other ve= ndors (paraqum, bequant/cambium) and libreQoS is trying to do.=C2=A0 The fi= rst two are REALLY pushing this selecting narrowing of traffic and they'= ;ll go straight after streaming for their demos.=C2=A0 Most people that dro= p in the cambium QoE appliance turn the knobs on Netflix down and then prai= se the 40% savings on their network.=C2=A0 Same with PQ.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I thin= k this is fundamentally wrong.=C2=A0 This is the entire reason Net Neutrali= ty keeps popping up.=C2=A0 Why does the ISP get to say "You only need = 25Mbps for your netflix".=C2=A0 That's double wrong if they offer = their own video services.=C2=A0 It's not about improving the customer&#= 39;s experience, it's about spending less on upstream bandwidth at the = customer's expense.=C2=A0 As soon as they say 'pays for itself in b= andwidth savings' you know what the product is primarily for.
>>>>
>>>> This is why I like the preseem and libreqos model of just = using a 'stock' cake and just finessing the data coming in to keep = the pipe from clogging.=C2=A0 Who cares if someone pulls 90M bursts of appl= e TV+ on their 100M pipe.=C2=A0 Only dial that back so other requests they = make get through cleanly.
>>>>
>>>> preseem is going more towards wireless monitoring etc and = kinda letting shaping be a secondary.... if they were doing more libreqos l= ike stuff I'd just stick with preseem.
>>>>
>>>> libreQoS may end up being the best and most net neutral pr= oduct you can get.=C2=A0 The only current disadvantage (ignoring DPI) is la= ck of TCP accelleration that PQ and Bequant/cambium have.
>>>>
>>>> I should add that 3 states already have laws on the books = that straight up make PQ and Cambium's solution illegal because they ta= rget certain services for throttling.=C2=A0 My state (Montana) has the same= rule except only when working with a government contract.=C2=A0 Libreqos i= s actually compliant (as is preseem).
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 8:11 AM Dave Taht via LibreQoS <= ;libreq= os@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> this report predates the libreqos list...
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>> From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 8:15 PM
>>>>> Subject: A quick report from the WISPA conference
>>>>> To: Sina Khanifar <sina@waveform.com>
>>>>> Cc: Cake List <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Make-Wifi-f= ast
>>>>> <make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Rpm >>>>> <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>= ,
>>>>> bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 7:51 PM Sina Khanifar <sina@waveform.com>= ; wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Positive or negative, I can claim a bit of credit= for this video :). We've been working with LTT on a few projects and w= e pitched them on doing something around bufferbloat. We've seen more t= raffic to our Waveforn test than ever before, which has been fun!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you. Great job with that video! And waveform has= become the goto
>>>>> site for many now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't help but wonder tho... are you collecting = any statistics, over
>>>>> time, as to how much better the problem is getting? >>>>>
>>>>> And any chance they could do something similar explain= ing wifi?
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I was just at WISPA conference week before last. Prese= em's booth
>>>>> (fq_codel) was always packed. Vilo living had put cake= in their wifi 6
>>>>> product. A
>>>>> keynote speaker had deployed it and talked about it wi= th waveform
>>>>> results on the big screen (2k people there). A large w= ireless vendor
>>>>> demo'd privately to me their flent results before/= after cake on their
>>>>> next-gen radios... and people dissed tarana without me= prompting for
>>>>> their bad bufferbloat... and the best thing of all tha= t happened to me
>>>>> was... besides getting a hug from a young lady (megan)= who'd salvaged
>>>>> her schooling in alaska using sqm - I walked up to the= paraqum booth
>>>>> (another large QoE middlebox maker centered more in in= dia) and asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> "So... do y'all have fq_codel yet?"
>>>>>
>>>>> And they smiled and said: "No, we have something = better... we've got cake."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Cake? What's that?" - I said, innocentl= y.
>>>>>
>>>>> They then stepped me through their 200Gbps (!!) produc= t, which uses a
>>>>> bunch of offloads, and can track rtt down to a ms with= the intel
>>>>> ethernet card they were using. They'd modifed cake= to provide 16 (?)
>>>>> levels of service, and were running under dpdk (I am n= ot sure if cake
>>>>> was). It was a great, convincing pitch...
>>>>>
>>>>> ... then I told 'em who I was. There's a video= of the in-both concert after.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The downside to me (and the subject of my talk) was th= at in nearly
>>>>> every person I talked to, fq_codel was viewed as a mea= ns to better
>>>>> subscriber bandwidth plan enforcement (which is admitt= edly the market
>>>>> that preseem pioneered) and it was not understood that= I'd got
>>>>> involved in this whole thing because I'd wanted an= algorithm to deal
>>>>> with "rain fade", running directly on the ra= dios. People wanted to use
>>>>> the statistics on the radios to drive the plan enforce= ment better
>>>>> (which is an ok approach, I guess), and for 10+ I'= d been whinging
>>>>> about the... physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I ranted about rfc7567 a lot and begged people now = putting routerOS
>>>>> 7.2 and later out there (mikrotik is huge in this mark= et), to kill
>>>>> their fifos and sfqs at the native rates of the interf= aces... and
>>>>> watch their network improve that way also.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think one more wispa conference will be a clean swee= p of everyone in
>>>>> the fixed wireless market to not only adopt these algo= rithms for plan
>>>>> enforcement, but even more directly on the radios and = more CPE.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also picked up enough consulting business to keep me= busy the rest
>>>>> of this year, and possibly more than I can handle (any= body looking?)
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder what will happen at a fiber conference?
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 7:45 PM Dave Taht via Blo= at <blo= at@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 5:02 PM Stuart Cheshi= re <cheshire@app= le.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > On 9 Oct 2022, at 06:14, Dave Taht via M= ake-wifi-fast <make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > > This was so massively well done, I = cried. Does anyone know how to get in touch with the ifxit folk?
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > https://www.you= tube.com/watch?v=3DUICh3ScfNWI
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > I=E2=80=99m surprised that you liked thi= s video. It seems to me that it repeats all the standard misinformation. Th= e analogy they use is the standard terrible example of waiting in a long li= ne at a grocery store, and the =E2=80=9Csolution=E2=80=9D is letting certai= n traffic =E2=80=9Cjump the line, angering everyone behind them=E2=80=9D. >>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Accuracy be damned. The analogy to common exp= erience resonates more.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Some quotes from the video:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > > it would be so much more efficient = for them to let you skip the line and just check out, especially since you= =E2=80=99re in a hurry, but they=E2=80=99re rudely refusing
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I think the person with the cheetos pulling o= ut a gun and shooting
>>>>> >> everyone in front of him (AQM) would not go d= own well.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> > > to go back to our grocery store ana= logy this would be like if a worker saw you standing at the back ... and ei= ther let you skip to the front of the line or opens up an express lane just= for you
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Actually that analogy is fairly close to fair= queuing. The multiple
>>>>> >> checker analogy is one of the most common ana= logies in queue theory
>>>>> >> itself.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > The video describes the problem of buffe= rbloat, and then describes the same failed solution that hasn=E2=80=99t wor= ked for the last three decades.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Hmm? It establishes the scenario, explains th= e problem *quickly*,
>>>>> >> disses gamer routers for not getting it right= ..=C2=A0 *points to an
>>>>> >> accurate test*, and then to the ideas and pro= ducts that *actually
>>>>> >> work* with "smart queueing", with a= screenshot of the most common
>>>>> >> (eero's optimize for gaming and videoconf= erencing), and fq_codel and
>>>>> >> cake *by name*, and points folk at the best k= nown solution available,
>>>>> >> openwrt.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Bing, baddabang, boom. Also the comments were= revealing. A goodly
>>>>> >> percentage already knew the problem, more tha= n a few were inspired to
>>>>> >> take the test,
>>>>> >> there was a whole bunch of "Aha!" s= uccess stories and 360k views,
>>>>> >> which is more people than we've ever been= able to reach in for
>>>>> >> example, a nanog conference.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I loved that folk taking the test actually ha= d quite a few A results,
>>>>> >> without having had to do anything. At least s= ome ISPs are getting it
>>>>> >> more right now!
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> At this point I think gamers in particular kn= ow what "brands" we've
>>>>> >> tried to establish - "Smart queues"= , "SQM", "OpenWrt", fq_codel and
>>>>> >> now "cake" are "good" thi= ngs to have, and are stimulating demand by
>>>>> >> asking for them,=C2=A0 =C2=A0It's certain= ly working out better and better for
>>>>> >> evenroute, firewalla, ubnt and others, and I = saw an uptick in
>>>>> >> questions about this on various user forums.<= br> >>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I even like that there's a backlash now o= f people saying "fixing
>>>>> >> bufferbloat doesn't solve everything"= ; -
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >=C2=A0 Describing the obvious simple-mind= ed (wrong) solution that any normal person would think of based on their pe= rsonal human experience waiting in grocery stores and airports, is not desc= ribing the solution to bufferbloat. The solution to bufferbloat is not that= if you are privileged then you get to =E2=80=9Cskip to the front of the li= ne=E2=80=9D. The solution to bufferbloat is that there is no line!
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I like the idea of a guru floating above a gr= ocery cart with a better
>>>>> >> string of explanations, explaining
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - "no, grasshopper, the sol= ution to bufferbloat is no line... at all".
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > With grocery stores and airports people= =E2=80=99s arrivals are independent and not controlled. There is no way for= a grocery store or airport to generate backpressure to tell people to wait= at home when a queue begins to form. The key to solving bufferbloat is gen= erating timely backpressure to prevent the queue forming in the first place= , not accepting a huge queue and then deciding who deserves special treatme= nt to get better service than all the other peons who still have to wait in= a long queue, just like before.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I am not huge on the word "backpressure&= quot; here. Needs to signal the
>>>>> >> other side to slow down, is more accurate. So= might say timely
>>>>> >> signalling rather than timely backpressure? >>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Other feedback I got=C2=A0 was that the video= was too smarmy (I agree),
>>>>> >> different audiences than gamers need differen= t forms of outreach...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> but to me, winning the gamers has always been= one of the most
>>>>> >> important things, as they make a lot of buyin= g decisions, and they
>>>>> >> benefit the most for
>>>>> >> fq and packet prioritization as we do today i= n gamer routers and in
>>>>> >> cake + qosify.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> maybe that gets in the way of more serious ma= rkets. Certainly I would
>>>>> >> like another video explaining what goes wrong= with videoconferencing.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Stuart Cheshire
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> --
>>>>> >> This song goes out to all the folk that thoug= ht Stadia would work:
>>>>> >> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-ac= tivity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
>>>>> >> Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>>>>> >> _____________________________________________= __
>>>>> >> Bloat mailing list
>>>>> >> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.= net/listinfo/bloat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia= would work:
>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-69= 81366665607352320-FXtz
>>>>> Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia= would work:
>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-69= 81366665607352320-FXtz
>>>>> Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LibreQoS mailing list
>>>>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/li= stinfo/libreqos
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LibreQoS mailing list
>>>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listin= fo/libreqos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Robert Chac=C3=B3n
>>> CEO | JackRabbit Wireless LLC
>>> Dev | LibreQoS.io
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LibreQoS mailing list
>>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/l= ibreqos
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LibreQoS mailing list
>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libre= qos
>
> _______________________________________________
> LibreQoS mailing list
> Li= breQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos<= /a>



--
This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
https://www.= linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXt= z
Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
--000000000000050e7b05ed4b6e52--