[Cerowrt-devel] SInce I mentioned this crew's work in a post, I don't want anyone to be surprised.

Aaron Wood woody77 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 19 14:17:50 EST 2015

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:

> I also tend to wish that streaming video had got it's own control port
> rather than being layered over 80 and 443.

In my experience, that was due to the corporate firewalls' default rule of
disallowing outbound connections.  Port 80 can be deep-packet-inspected to
confirm it's HTTP, and 443 can be confirmed to be SSL, and so everything
else was shut down.  So everything had to be delivered over those, or it
failed.  In my world, that means that IoT devices talking custom protocols
over SSL have to use 443 to the datacenters because the corporate firewall
people won't allow anything else out.  And if you can't demo it from the
"guest" network at a company, you won't make any sales there.

OTOH, fq_codel should hash them out separately based on the destination IP
and source ports as separate connections.  Not separable into a QoS bucket,
but at least able to pry apart the streams for fairness...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/attachments/20150119/d431ba3f/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Cerowrt-devel mailing list