From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (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 A5F653B29D; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 00:54:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-50307759b65so21789093e87.0; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 21:54:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1695963244; x=1696568044; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=tweX1bPMQ9Ox/f+q8ovdSUBN/IB4HxMd5Fe+7QDWQYM=; b=DQyC4Jt0uIzyhjVAc1etZe4lKbMUUL0ArQ7ydLEZ5mqbwP7DQJYIpAMUc6sIQd4MDR AuoAuSmZTg9edzmpqAfl8j9rS4RC+L53lvEjkukEz65tPnx8wWDykuAD4W2Xl8iK0/Yl uCgbTbLVQsReA7vqZ5/zA5CY4KFPnAas2FoGepxWkfbuMd1MWalU79kqj0blLgkvHUCa wU66rfqzKSMfSd2fDZYuz9/vKyvoEoaOjiXmEyepeFjaFZO9gWc5jmF7V3qFkx9kBAAf sz3lihLGLPEzCT+DSnUI//ncAOkaIHDGTqATJn3ZXRH8MlOHL9XYTR8xYr2imQP1EFC6 DoWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1695963244; x=1696568044; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tweX1bPMQ9Ox/f+q8ovdSUBN/IB4HxMd5Fe+7QDWQYM=; b=KaHezUT31nFdD41dG106lcl5HUgdg+GApXxCXAfU2+6yyqPbkwIbLow4yWG7Sc1rYL MiznKvPxDx0HjmPLVlTWeJSObOL80t8C2klZsaI9vGMy9Ow0BoGAjozhYDdlK61/5xeN OxiRRP4iBeDyYuF1HORP63sdqIo3bLem8g+MIJ5n8Q667DNljjC0qLV/3BOWyvRvGtJv aTLfDm8VzooXH9DJ/4F2rgDGed1bZH4hoKi2TbaZ72tRyRO+vMoyX6siqM3T1PB0Bgq/ zz3Tf8GMDcjBIQRntI65+09BodKFgHQERV4gJO4fKy5+6NYqG2MzmAZWx7QUu5+gYsDV uKzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxa+JiM+ljguhPUIf+Uqhjbw6bL/D+gSrfsrvj1wK4k8uPvWyn6 Hs4MTKw8Ub7LrJpdm9SYeoB1KlrT0A0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEHFwgGIpQVb7CWhPRTa3kgdIjsdXX7eBfzvLG0jh5fBhYznFZR04rqhCEpWGb6vLLEOu0cfA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:1383:b0:501:bf30:714c with SMTP id fc3-20020a056512138300b00501bf30714cmr3549599lfb.24.1695963243790; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 21:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple (188-67-146-233.bb.dnainternet.fi. [188.67.146.233]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j16-20020a19f510000000b005041b7bf005sm3338712lfb.164.2023.09.28.21.54.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Sep 2023 21:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <5so3r00n-31pn-14s7-7775-08731s3s551r@ynat.uz> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 07:54:01 +0300 Cc: "Livingood, Jason" , Dave Taht via Starlink , dan , Jamal Hadi Salim , libreqos , Rpm , bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7508FE73-A154-4CBA-984C-748A80C5FFEC@gmail.com> References: <5so3r00n-31pn-14s7-7775-08731s3s551r@ynat.uz> To: David Lang X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22) Subject: Re: [Rpm] [Bloat] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] net neutrality back in the news X-BeenThere: rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: revolutions per minute - a new metric for measuring responsiveness List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 04:54:05 -0000 > On 29 Sep, 2023, at 1:19 am, David Lang via Bloat = wrote: >=20 > Dave T called out earlier that the rise of bittorrent was a large part = of the inital NN discussion here in the US. But a second large portion = was a money grab from ISPs thinking that they could hold up large paid = websites (netflix for example) for additional fees by threatening to = make their service less useful to their users (viewing their users as an = asset to be marketed to the websites rather than customers to be = satisfied by providing them access to the websites) >=20 > I don't know if a new round of "it's not fair that Netflix doesn't pay = us for the bandwidth to service them" would fall flat at this point or = not. I think there were three more-or-less separate concerns which have, over = time, fallen under the same umbrella: 1: Capacity-seeking flows tend to interfere with latency-sensitive = flows, and the "induced demand" phenomenon means that increases in link = rate do not in themselves solve this problem, even though they may be = sold as doing so. This is directly addressed by properly-sized buffers and/or AQM, and = even better by FQ and SQM. It's a solved problem, so long as the = solutions are deployed. It's not usually necessary, for example, to = specifically enhance service for latency-sensitive traffic, if FQ does a = sufficiently good job. An increased link rate *does* enhance service = quality for both latency-sensitive and capacity-seeking traffic, = provided FQ is in use. 2: Swarm traffic tends to drown out conventional traffic, due to = congestion control algorithms which try to be more-or-less fair on a = per-flow basis, and the substantially larger number of parallel flows = used by swarm traffic. This also caused subscribers using swarm traffic = to impair the service of subscribers who had nothing to do with it. FQ on a per-flow basis (see problem 1) actually amplifies this effect, = and I think it was occasionally used as an argument for *not* deploying = FQ. ISPs' initial response was to outright block swarm traffic where = they could identify it, which was then softened to merely throttling it = heavily, before NN regulations intervened. Usage quotas also showed up = around this time, and were probably related to this problem. This has since been addressed by several means. ISPs may use FQ on a = per-subscriber basis to prevent one subscriber's heavy traffic from = degrading service for another. Swarm applications nowadays tend to = employ altruistic congestion control which deliberately compensates for = the large number of flows, and/or mark them with one or more of the = Least Effort class DSCPs. Hence, swarm applications are no longer as = damaging to service quality as they used to be. Usage quotas, however, = still remain in use as a profit centre, to the point where an = "unlimited" service is a rare and precious specimen in many = jurisdictions. 3: ISPs merged with media distribution companies, creating a conflict = of interest in which the media side of the business wanted the internet = side to actively favour "their own" media traffic at the expense of "the = competition". Some ISPs began to actively degrade Netflix traffic, in = particular by refusing to provision adequate peering capacity at the = nodes through which Netflix traffic predominated, or by zero-rating (for = the purpose of usage quotas) traffic from their own media empire while = refusing to do the same for Netflix traffic. **THIS** was the true core of Net Neutrality. NN regulations forced = ISPs to carry Netflix traffic with reasonable levels of service, even = though they didn't want to for purely selfish and greedy commercial = reasons. NN succeeded in curbing an anti-competitive and = consumer-hostile practice, which I am perfectly sure would resume just = as soon as NN regulations were repealed. And this type of practice is just the sort of thing that technologies = like L4S are designed to support. The ISPs behind L4S actively do not = want a technology that works end-to-end over the general Internet. They = want something that can provide a domination service within their own = walled gardens. That's why L4S is a NN hazard, and why they actively = resisted all attempts to displace it with SCE. All of the above were made more difficult to solve by the monopolistic = nature of the Internet service industry. It is actively difficult for = Internet users to move to a truly different service, especially one = based on a different link technology. When attempts are made to = increase competition, for example by deploying a publicly-funded = network, the incumbents actively sabotage those attempts by any means = they can. Monopolies are inherently customer-hostile, and arguments = based on market forces fail in their presence. - Jonathan Morton