From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bosmailout08.eigbox.net (bosmailout08.eigbox.net [66.96.186.8]) (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 D32C23CB40 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:51:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from bosmailscan03.eigbox.net ([10.20.15.3]) by bosmailout08.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1rFKaL-0000co-F1 for nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:51:33 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alum.mit.edu; s=dkim; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender :Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=HSuwtz0w/jmUjv0udr+CUg3ap9RSHvOb7RKkRCr4vRY=; b=O/rOerWDstDnmrBfLJpmwSogXc pfQFmINDwLvGUjWhzFSea8uFcfQ9LZLLrtyAirya23HnKeT7GdOL8NTnOKFdms+P4kPdrJBeU9f9z aNfD3DcsvduBOo23gGDNpR+Q4SP4bQaqDVbaSyaovNeUa8/1kzTPoREKuxyeyqaWge6O7hZ+anGqo dWPLjmDVrnwy6cOB9B3C7ePD+doKNCah5lwPy8ir7NHp8UAzmXRNBEqkIB50GXHc36Q1R2ME9Ytk6 1DRNed5mQvaQ3lY0kQ4D86Mau3phqI/R5DI8EeplzQDnbleiwxMpTiiAYp2IGTzV0HeE5/O9/iMlz iX473Gvw==; Received: from [10.115.3.32] (helo=bosimpout12) by bosmailscan03.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1rFKaL-0006W2-72 for nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:51:33 -0500 Received: from bosauthsmtp09.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.20.18.9]) by bosimpout12 with id PwrW2B0010BkY8i01wrZ24; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:51:33 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=dOg9ZNRb c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=+tcVrJynzLVJ9yqDAOBWjQ==:117 a=tKttg/DTfI8zZz0UFxdR5w==:17 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=e2cXIFwxEfEA:10 a=kurRqvosAAAA:8 a=BqEg4_3jAAAA:8 a=jU2thFBwAAAA:8 a=EWPDJS0nAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=A1X0JdhQAAAA:8 a=IrLisT2Gd7jkAPAR7TkA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=H9FL3lxn3kwA:10 a=0E-SqgzN6KYA:10 a=kbxRQ_lfPIoQnHsAj2-A:22 a=0mFWnFbQd5xWBqmg7tTt:22 a=fgvmDdrtego4Zrz-ANXk:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=Df3jFdWbhGDLdZNm0fyq:22 Received: from c-73-158-253-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([73.158.253.41]:56032 helo=SRA6) by bosauthsmtp09.eigbox.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1rFKaH-00087j-GT; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:51:29 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Dick Roy" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?'Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?pects_heard_this_time!'?= Cc: "'Sebastian Moeller'" , "'Ronan Pigott'" References: <0256BC1C-06CF-4E12-9C88-E42590CBBFB9@comcast.com> <512AB204-6A66-47F6-A789-DB2EC403F639@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <512AB204-6A66-47F6-A789-DB2EC403F639@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 12:51:22 -0800 Organization: SRA Message-ID: <4A72F53430994BA488E2BD4BCE7741FB@SRA6> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Adoxxj+Hfi7NiRVOS6GOM13oewnlGQALVEnA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE X-EN-UserInfo: f809475445fb8041985048e338e1a001:931c98230c6409dcc37fa7e93b490c27 X-EN-AuthUser: dickroy@intellicommunications.com Sender: "Dick Roy" X-EN-OrigIP: 73.158.253.41 X-EN-OrigHost: c-73-158-253-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net Subject: Re: [NNagain] Net neutrality and Bufferbloat? X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 20:51:33 -0000 Given that the capacity of a system is in essence a theoretical maximum = (in this case data rates of a communications sytem), I am not sure what = "scaling the capacity to the load" means. Throttling the load to the capacity I understand. Hmm .... RR -----Original Message----- From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf = Of Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 7:24 AM To: Network Neutrality is back! Let=B4s make the technical aspects heard = this time! Cc: Sebastian Moeller; Ronan Pigott Subject: Re: [NNagain] Net neutrality and Bufferbloat? Hi Jason, during the Covid19 era, the EU issued clarifications that even = throttling a complete class like streaming video might be within reasonable network management. The only stipulations wer this needs to happen only to allow arguably more important traffic classes (like work-from home vide conferences or remote schooling) to proceed with less interferences and blind to source and sender. That is using this to play favorites amongst streaming services would still be problematic, but down-prioritizing all streaming would be acceptable. (Now the assumption is that reasonable network management will not last for ever and is no replacement for = scaling the capacity to the load in the intermediate/longer terms). > On Dec 18, 2023, at 16:10, Livingood, Jason via Nnagain wrote: >=20 >> Misapplied concepts of network neutrality is one of the things that killed >> fq codel for DOCSIS 3.1 >=20 > I am not so sure this was the case - I think it was just that a = different AQM was selected. DOCSIS 3.1 includes the DOCSIS-PIE AQM - see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8034.html and=20 > https://www.cablelabs.com/blog/how-docsis-3-1-reduces-latency-with-active= -qu eue-management. I co-wrote a paper about our deployment during COVID at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.13968.pdf. See also https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-livingood-low-latency-deployment-03= .ht ml. >=20 >> Finally, some jurisdictions impose regulations that limit the ability = of >> networks to provide differentiation of services, in large part this = seems to >> be based on the belief that doing so necessarily involves = prioritization or >> privileged access to bandwidth, and thus a benefit to one class of traffic >> always comes at the expense of another. >=20 > Much regulatory/policy discussion still frames networks as making decisions with scarce bandwidth, rather than abundant bandwidth, and prioritization in that view is a zero-sum game. But IMO we're no longer = in the bandwidth-scarcity era but in a bandwidth-abundance era - or at = least in an era with declining marginal utility of bandwidth as compared to techniques to improve latency. But I digress. Speaking from my side of the pond, over here we still have a somewhat big divide between those sitting on heaps of capacity and those that are still in the painful range <=3D 16 Mbps (16 itself would not be = so bad, but that class goes down below 1 Mbps links and that is IMHO = painful). >=20 > To go back to the question of reasonable network management - the key = is that any technique used must not be application or destination-specific. = So for example, it cannot be focused on flows to the example.com = destination or on any flows that are streaming video [1].=20 See above, while as long as example.com is not violating the law this first is also not an option inside the EU regulatory framework, but = the second already has been under specific limited circumstances. > Anyway - I do not think new AQMs or dual queue low latency networking = is in conflict with net neutrality.=20 I agree that AQMs are pretty safe, and I feel that packet schedulers are also fine, even conditional priority schedulers ;) Regards Sebastian >=20 > Jason >=20 > [1] Current rules differ between wireless/mobile and fixed last mile networks; currently the MNOs have a lot more latitude that fixed = networks but that may be sorted out in the current NPRM. My personal view is = there should be a unified set of rules of all networks. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain _______________________________________________ Nnagain mailing list Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain