From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (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 1DDFD3CB4B for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 10:23:59 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1702913033; x=1703517833; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=zGph4FtPIs2LH7Sz8u6fByEvm0stIm3Cv2fizf4Y1S0=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References: To; b=izk2YL9ORZo2PjIBYy+QReCCq9R58f7Fqd7rYVR7uvdg6Xa1ITeGuAK+V1wiKNrA jv/gfO1+MJn4ziC9DQHYjpCSrUP39RkdO3A6JnJF8i0RtBvZPlDDWKVvLiXVjXa9v 6SOCkzJ6idO4m2aqH1BpaZ+W9jBrcFUFyGPaosiTklXG0XkHTvNGKJaxba+W34D9c sxVpzsRw0Gub1sDoE5P4H38GhAiHZ+gdXM0CWR3kx5HuPmqxIw76hSIjTPUYNeloN M27vJCfcWtpFUQEwS7ssrMYhy5vQ61hFgEAPh3Ja+1x0QTlCFOGRDtAtNxpjRkpG5 bfhkt38w7rjJnDpkRQ== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1ML9yc-1rXKaR3Gny-00IGe1; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:23:53 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <0256BC1C-06CF-4E12-9C88-E42590CBBFB9@comcast.com> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:23:52 +0100 Cc: "Livingood, Jason" , Ronan Pigott Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <512AB204-6A66-47F6-A789-DB2EC403F639@gmx.de> References: <0256BC1C-06CF-4E12-9C88-E42590CBBFB9@comcast.com> To: =?utf-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?utf-8?Q?pects_heard_this_time!?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:zyqTbtj4P0IKFq87Nap7lyzSh4d7Z3KzV/PpqZMvMKdrSsdKDYN x8t64y4Y6tXGgkoUHar57GV6AeFOWyysWJhgB3mbT7f+3oiDJR326NzEHD9k+/PkcQaimO/ Db1toJBt7v+w6GCv/fX3O+ntANneS/oBGtU0Cc/XRpyrlqpVKEfIASP72Leyyol1BuPTFuh yOyBzifpzfXBpNCuVKSiw== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:CXiTo1i6ZEE=;NKvIAFdVym+VZvpv9ozb9Mh86XT QQr/ad8aLZAl82y/zalORXq7bPQlewE2mXMmhfdFwPkpw5s6KR1rpn3W8fV8vOzo20IGuk6YT 1lpmHnZmrWFgLZ7hcKmQt3S4nCrM1LkV9kA9ko4kOKS0scXSEnVUKfM58yK+YuaCcFXjUf2F0 wHOdS2nDGomh9Uv/oYF1lUWQY28v8J1zIvwshv90PUr0lDkpybxNvdcwffD2LXiO7xfRDxmNp JeMkKEo0N7Dx6OIeAVzGwBAjDW20wMC966twG8VgBa0kmjp5u5mqFZXUptH780iHs0WhCTVnZ DnWunqVM9yldx+PU/JFP3VkzPZUyC6uBxedujTThLJ4jp4OJ3Y9QbQPjsx4mfQDtOKMoWjiX+ sy0uUYwMR+csBtnBId9ytYa4nMWnOVV9OT0DHeEb6aAG5GssWwrvg5Mg7Ir1k1uUSMLi063AF qMRoH40JhjH7B0+YQ9hLXGnAYs99Q/cSFMMv9cwlHJ3SzpewoB7u4rikBIbIua9gdAPUWDpOw qyyMFvdLMpvh4OfwPDRer9pzuvd6BbAfst7kDGTGekajqzsli6un8rdsq/6ecf5LWKFsQKoDW xIerS98FYF1e8yPV4rHly7UFfEjVxArGVhjVdP8u5PDj0cCtaGzBRXUMe6t6aVb4zBnuS1EXW fQ3QA6ESihu+zzyzlXF5xCWa4SHzhsMvs9TCJOUDBu3IxiizjLGaQkNaS2LwmGC3nbO9rUF9l cui4EcMce+Am/08bAJ5eDLc5nQAXWxuOunJtNDxgr0kuhq89EZzY339NdMkGypvW4jottSbZD wzXNKYYQySlKSp7S0eKbA7mLOUiIhOSz18jhusIGz4SrTl3Xh2w+KAZq4Do7v256DWXoWdqkl XXDKq1xzCDutTVEtVh++XwzBKzsA7bquB4TvOq2IAlSZJ5uUgLCAZG3EO1KbexZx5sfdNKPdW 3RxLN/kEFVk6ud5etWEG5Hg84J4= 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 15:24:00 -0000 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-= queue-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.= html. >=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