From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (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 B50423CB41 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 18:32:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-517ab9a4a13so1002938a12.1 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 15:32:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1702683124; x=1703287924; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=8lt2BRCHdRx+z0rSKBwBdp/nteXbbdB2sqgpv8i0WZg=; b=CgFVEJ5uwqtM55k5kqVPRJ6NNGMXkke/2dJvWxCFMbFi/sTQFn03D2t+wfhWhIsv66 Owt63tspP5Ptr38KNNcNPHwrTt4VpOEDgiccEMEtXDSqSDRjph4Vq+gswCpLFQDZBKVp 8O5badoTPPSarEh6EUDMJXfTgRaUFgRF+WUkKwZDoNLP7SslcileLK7cvk0QiDeEtd+v b4xCtmCtHBMDb0mNGJFBes1n2/8Vy+JUn5ODIqkb487LpXIu4shMXN2Q8AU5kbHzESXn DitYvrY6uG1Yydcl1cGzc6a/a8KZ4zAhuVsypDEu8c1zGwimcQv5d3T4wqYD3q9Rg4ep VQ1A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1702683124; x=1703287924; h=content-transfer-encoding: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=8lt2BRCHdRx+z0rSKBwBdp/nteXbbdB2sqgpv8i0WZg=; b=mCUO59T57W1cC+kvW9oAgoaQwk7ZMHxMRXEZoVWzqVZScDj2OFOv+vzie3YPTkqn7S 2qaT+Jt1U+YdST+zLb5Ve8JO8ig3HPGra9SISO/fETW6T/zuvGsn5p4houDDk7c/2CX5 BmIpN610xs2Mu6uFzLdSfL7/mUFvs1gHCEgBdnDXt9k9p1/JVmoB7CSPJW4l7XMSHVs5 IQSW0B7FNX5rJfR1/5v2WBRQu9+g9fD+VjvsAgx0FblM9b/atQFQ4oYD0gxhawQHK4TX UZ67rZP6eOZIaLBNhH1npqmNRK9pozHIKry0vd8jHeQzlswYIl1qesI4nzVzTCkCxl4K 7vgg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz2P40ivVYvoPFtsfMwDB9CRdjJI5SJr/pg6HOH+CTYGoPo6dZe fcQXvqHombYEq0v6l7DfSdwC9kH4D8iPTNofOXF2AuXA X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHfd8XfWUhG80Wa3spefIPQWtYcPUnRHZ0ckYUiHsQNNKX9r6P4wdCkjSP6VNLO33nX+57haqTpGonO2esaBG4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:8b13:b0:18f:cc29:3d99 with SMTP id l19-20020a056a208b1300b0018fcc293d99mr13423744pzh.57.1702683123970; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 15:32:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 15:31:49 -0800 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back=21_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_asp?= =?UTF-8?Q?ects_heard_this_time=21?= Cc: Ronan Pigott Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 23:32:05 -0000 On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 3:12=E2=80=AFPM Ronan Pigott via Nnagain wrote: > > Hi, > > I read the recent NOI response and it sparked my interest in the relation= ship > between Net Neutrality and bufferbloat. I also found [1] which makes it s= eem > Net Neutrality is an obstacle to solving bufferbloat in the US, at least.= I'm > just curious about the legal obstacles to bufferbloat solutions in the US= . I > tried reading the FCC rules which I understand changed in 2010, 2014, and= 2017 > but theye're kinda vague I think and I am no lawyer nor industry veteran = and > don't think I really understand the implications. > > In particular, [1] claims: > > > Misapplied concepts of network neutrality is one of the things that kil= led > > fq codel for DOCSIS 3.1 > > Does anyone know more about this? I quoted from a cable industry insider on that (2013) and at the time, I too thought that the technology was so new that any number of objections could be raised to it. Queuing remains ill-industood in general, the pain points and misunderstandings that fueled the bitorrent vs voip debacle, still present. We've since cracked a few billion instances of fq_codel, so... tI long ago stopped worrying a regulator would take an interest (except perhaps in helping further deployment!), and even the pro-NN side, places like public knowledge, have acknowledged the benefit, but it has taken a huge educational and deployment process to get to where we are today. At the time I could hardly imagine the technology to be as successful as it has been either (apple and linux defaults), and yet I keep hoping to see deployments where it is needed most, on our wireless technologies. fq_codel on 5G or starlink would be nice to see next year! > > When looking around, I found more similar claims [2]: > > > Finally, some jurisdictions impose regulations that limit the ability o= f > > networks to provide differentiation of services, in large part this see= ms to > > be based on the belief that doing so necessarily involves prioritizatio= n or > > privileged access to bandwidth, and thus a benefit to one class of traf= fic > > always comes at the expense of another. > > Anyone know what regulations the authors mean here? We have done extensive surveys of US and some european law here, and the consensus appears to be that so long as it is an application class, not a specific service from a specific provider being boosted or not, "reasonable network management" suffices. > I personally run openwrt+sqm/cake in my home router and have found it to = be > effective, so I am convinced of the value of sqm. Is Net Neutrality regul= ation > an obstacle to wider deployment? > > [1] https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/net_neutrality_customers/ > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb/ > > Thanks, > > Ronan > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain --=20 :( My old R&D campus is up for sale: https://tinyurl.com/yurtlab Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos