Jeeze, you guys are up early. I read this stuff on the plane home from australia, and am still a bit under the weather.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:01 AM Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi Jonathan, > > > > On Jan 24, 2020, at 08:44, Jonathan Morton <chromati...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 24 Jan, 2020, at 7:37 am, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> "Otherwise, this exemplary embodiment enables system configuration to > >> discard the low-priority packet tail, and transmit the high-priority > >> packet instead, without waiting." > > > > So this really *is* a "fast lane" enabling technology. Just as we > > suspected. Well, there are weasel words elsewhere in the patent, and the dualq code for linux merely cleared a lane for L4S traffic and hardcoded the ect(1) as an identifier. It would be good to have more data on rtt-fairness, and on CE reordering of rfc3168 ecn packets. I spent time dreaming up also all the ways "queue protection" could be used against the user. Given the rigor of the l4s spec required, and how one misbehaving application can screw it all up, I could see queue protection of unknown sources that can be squelched on demand being a desirable "feature". This can be used to stop "unauthorized" mac addresses from participating in this design as one example. I like the idea of queue protection - there is a lot of malicious traffic worth throttling - but without a reporting scheme to the user, nor a means for the user to set it up, and the mechanism under the sole control of the ISP - not so much. My other in-flight entertainment was cory doctorow's latest piece, which was so good I submitted it to slashdot. ( https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-near-future-tale-of-refugees-and-sinister-iot-appliances/ ) > They seem to be setting their customers up for a head-on collision > with the European Union's net neutrality rules, according to which "special > services/fast lanes" are permissible under the condition thay they are > realized with completely dedicated addition bandwidth. Just looking at their > patent diagram there is one common input path to the classifier. So either > that fast lane is not going to be a paid for fast lane, or the ISPs rolling > this out will be in hot water with the respective national regulators (at > least in the EU). The one chance would be to give the end-user control over > the classification engine, or if the strict priority path is only used for > ISP originated VoIP traffic (I seem to recall there are weasel words in the > EU rules that would allow that and ISPs are doing something like that > already, and I agree that it is nice to be able to field an emergency call > independent of access link load). Well, one country at a time. NN is currently quite dead in the USA, and only a change in regime might change that, and it's unclear if any of the candiates understand the issues. Certainly with twin subsidies being aimed at 5G and broadband deployment in pending legislation, I have no idea what will happen here next. I view 5G with fear, watching frontier file for bankruptcy, also... I really wish all the fiber being run for 5G was being run into the home instead. > > Best Regards > Sebastian > > > > > > - Jonathan Morton > > _______________________________________________ > > Ecn-sane mailing list > > ecn-s...@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane > -- Make Music, Not War Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-435-0729 _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat