From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (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 9D83E3B29D for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 13:09:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3bbc649c275so1679804b6e.0 for ; Sat, 09 Mar 2024 10:09:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1710007750; x=1710612550; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=MENaTahm2XvJrt+La90ZM0ZCY3CpVIHOV15GeuhUBhE=; b=QFCyBGR5+Gx018JmYsNVWmjWWPgEjpSCZ5ELcwND/zP/hyZqRLNmrEsxeagIyzdZJH vjPqcOQTfx6MMAJN0TwLiX9wViRoFl99WbqTNAPE/Bq1MCRa8ShesZYtIEKXNt505fJS jBOxieUGb4notWqBFNgpmQYiI1UFEdBR/kay8maHB4PJuIVluxxL+lKQHyWy+WSbx6Ee JWwn/0GGwxVdYZBK9vYQPZHRqVHnGEtHKQo9lGH0bT+Yv8bBsl6WllDX2uSSm2FsnpfD uEDLaWvwkAOukZsh9UgEq+jPZ48pEPWj5nkt9fyT1irwD3vbkvv0R/fm16TVQypaOkoa Eqnw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710007750; x=1710612550; 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=MENaTahm2XvJrt+La90ZM0ZCY3CpVIHOV15GeuhUBhE=; b=bksAyBp/F8EnuG76twPLoLZjR48Sum8f5O4QFaWnXHZYPrJ/E1E9TstI4Epsi6dG+K 6Siu3hF1NoijjUBOBN7mGIziXc3QUhYBPZR+zM1WvQOzTrySrQUy3NGIaOrk13RZlng2 J+qamctiGjbmqLEv4WfZLiOvq5R4RpPinpYGp6uwnpZbWaJ35B+GvP0g4kcjAebETfGf mjt1DHPchM0v017YRZmRJGIxSZcD4e1g5eMDTaSjhkJZIc6VgUTqbf5spO3ZOoy/fKWY M+gjJEI7nW/UqA82F5/60PJVtRDdA2BR3Lc7RRkUeBXmU9L3uxTvYqT6tNnOAZXRoOQJ Qxdw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwlEUIoRXK9lWC+gwmzv907f9r5JgJNpDkXj+X/HI12KElRyOpL d1mMBzM3m2PWHCKqi1t0mcMJqWwmHkgE8p+hunITpNGMWuwLEqmGUvIgOwL71tKICv/toZlNoQW 5vS1P9U1V+wZpfAo6XyZTgNaFeRhX3Nci X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFDmP4Jo9Xp1FduA+rucGonJsrlM8hC2h7cc+BnCN/SlMLNp84OJhNdU6sDcOBgNoib8tUN7wCmIHAvYWFzmOc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:819d:b0:221:3f51:984a with SMTP id k29-20020a056870819d00b002213f51984amr1783015oae.56.1710007750448; Sat, 09 Mar 2024 10:09:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dave Cohen Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 13:08:59 -0500 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: "Douglas Goncz A.A.S. M.E.T. 1990" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000875b8c06133e3457" Subject: Re: [NNagain] Flash Priority 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: Sat, 09 Mar 2024 18:09:11 -0000 --000000000000875b8c06133e3457 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bear in mind that FirstNet is its own thing, to an extent. Internet providers will (almost?) always discard priority bits for *general public Internet service*. FirstNet doesn't qualify as a service for general use, so it is possible that some markings may be reacted to, or at least not discarded outright. That is a question for someone more knowledgeable on the FirstNet service directly. What I can add is that in a previous life at a Tier 1, any traffic on a port that touched the public Internet in some manner had priority markings squashed, and that traffic was placed into the same priority queue on our backbone links (I recognize that the latter part of this statement opens up some other neutrality-adjacent worms) - this includes traffic accepted via peering, not just transit. Customers with private L2/3 services would either have their markings preserved or acted upon, depending on whether or not that service was "QoS enabled". The conclusions to reach here are, IMO: 1) Even if FirstNet itself responds to or accepts prioritization markings, destination networks beyond, where applicable, may not, so the relevance may be limited regardless. 2) This is deliberate choice at the provider level, even if that choice is effectively a consensus On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 12:56=E2=80=AFPM Douglas Goncz A.A.S. M.E.T. 1990 vi= a Nnagain wrote: > I think some of the cogent points made were > > Just because something is in an RFC and recognized or accepted RFC does > not mean it's been established > > Ancient rfcs can age out into abandoned protocols > > I got the distinct impression now and I think it's reasonable flash > priority is an abandoned protocol > > I will stay with firstnet and the engineers there to make sure I have > reliable communication in the event of an Internet emergency so that I ca= n > do what I do best which is help other people and I thank you all for > helping me with this issue. > > > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > --=20 - Dave Cohen craetdave@gmail.com @dCoSays www.venicesunlight.com --000000000000875b8c06133e3457 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bear in mind that FirstNet is its own thing,=C2=A0to an ex= tent. Internet providers will (almost?) always discard priority bits for *g= eneral public Internet service*. FirstNet doesn't qualify as a service = for general use, so it is possible that some markings may be reacted to, or= at least not discarded outright. That is a question for someone more knowl= edgeable on the FirstNet service directly.

What I can ad= d is that in a previous life at a Tier 1, any traffic on a port that touche= d the public Internet in some manner had priority markings squashed, and th= at traffic was placed into the same priority queue on our backbone links (I= recognize that the latter part of this statement opens up some other neutr= ality-adjacent worms) - this includes traffic accepted via peering, not jus= t transit. Customers with private L2/3 services would either have their mar= kings preserved or acted upon, depending on whether or not that service was= "QoS enabled". The conclusions to reach here are, IMO:

1) Even if FirstNet itself responds to or accepts prioritiz= ation markings, destination networks beyond, where applicable, may not, so = the relevance may be limited regardless.
2) This is deliberate ch= oice at the provider level, even if that choice is effectively a consensus<= /div>

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 12:56=E2=80=AFPM Douglas Goncz A.A.S. M.E.T. 19= 90 via Nnagain <nnagain= @lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
I think some of the cogent points m= ade were

Just because somethin= g is in an RFC and recognized or accepted RFC does not mean it's been e= stablished

Ancient rfcs = can age out into abandoned protocols

I got the distinct impression now and I think it's reasona= ble flash priority is an abandoned protocol

I will stay with firstnet and the engineers there to ma= ke sure I have reliable communication in the event of an Internet emergency= so that I can do what I do best which is help other people and I thank you= all for helping me with this issue.


_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@= lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain


--
- Dave Cohen
craetdave@gmail.com
@dCoSays
--000000000000875b8c06133e3457--