On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 1:28 PM Jonathan Foulkes <j...@jonathanfoulkes.com> wrote: > > All this discussion of DSCP marking brings to mind what happened on the > Windows platform, where the OS had to suppress ALL DSCP marks, as app authors > were trying to game the system. > And even if not trying to ‘game’ it, they have non-obvious reasons why they > don’t mark traffic how one would expect. Example: > > I know an engineer who works at a cloud-storage solution company, and I asked > why a long-standing customer request for DSCP marking (as bulk) was not > implemented. His answer was they’d never do that, as that would impact > benchmarks against their competitors for which service syncs faster. <sigh> > > Which brings me to a question: Is anyone aware of an easy to use Windows app > that will allow the user to select an application and tell the OS to mark the > traffic (all or by port) with a user selected DSCP level? > There are many guides on using regedit and other error-prone (and geek-only) > means of doing this, but is there a simple Windows 10 home app?
When I last tried it (years ago), in order to set the tos bits, an application merely had to have admin privs. > Now that Cake is out there with simple DiffServ3 support, it would be nice to > lower the priority of cloud-storage services and other bulk traffic by > correctly marking it at the origin. > > Cheers, > > Jonathan Foulkes > > > > On Mar 15, 2019, at 3:32 PM, Jonathan Morton <chromati...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 15 Mar, 2019, at 8:36 pm, Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote: > >> > >> Having a "lower-than-best-effort" diffserve codepoint might work, because > >> it means worse treatment, not preferential treatment. > >> > >> The problem with having DSCP CPs that indicate preferential treatment is > >> typically a ddos magnet. > > > > This is true, and also why I feel that just 2 bits should be sufficient for > > Diffserv (rather than 6). They are sufficient to express four different > > optimisation targets: > > > > 0: Maximum Throughput (aka Best Effort) > > 1: Minimum Cost (aka Least Effort) > > 2: Minimum Latency (aka Maximum Responsiveness) > > 3: Minimum Loss (aka Maximum Reliability) > > > > It is legitimate for traffic to request any of these four optimisations, > > with the explicit tradeoff of *not* necessarily getting optimisation in the > > other three dimensions. > > > > The old TOS spec erred in specifying 4 non-exclusive bits to express this, > > in addition to 3 bits for a telegram-office style "priority level" (which > > was very much ripe for abuse if not strictly admission-controlled). TOS > > was rightly considered a mess, but was replaced with Diffserv which was far > > too loose a spec to be useful in practice. > > > > But that's a separate topic from ECN per se. > > > > - Jonathan Morton > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bloat mailing list > > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat -- Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740 _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
