Re: [Bloat] [NNagain] The Verge: The quiet plan to make the internet feel faster

[Sebastian Moeller via Bloat]

Hi Frantisek,



> On Dec 11, 2023, at 20:33, Frantisek Borsik  
> wrote:
> 
> Hello Sebastian,
> 
> So you have shared that "L$S bible"  :-)

I even have some sympathy for his stance, by all means, flow rate 
fairness is rarely optimal and with sufficient information it seems almost 
always "easy" to do better. It is just that I consider the "with sufficient 
information" part the tricky bit. A random node in the internet can reliably 
use 4-tuples to segregate "flow-aggregates"* and arbitrate/equalize capacity 
between them, which while rarely optimal will almost guarantee that no flow is 
going to be starved (either none or all ;) ) in a sense is is not the most 
optimal, but the least pessimal policy. Anything else requires robust and 
reliable information delivery to the nodes having to make decisions which might 
work well in controlled environment, but not realistically in the open 
internet. And just to en-passant kill the "cost fairness" idea pushed in the 
paper, that requires a "notion" of user over which to aggregate and equalize 
the cost metric, something an arbitrary node will not have...

TO cite: "  • Allocate congestion among the bits sent by economic entities 
(cost fairness)" good luck for an intermediate node to aggregate by economic 
entities in a robust and reliable fashion...

At which point we can safely put that specific idea to rest by virtue of being 
unrealistic... 



*) This is relatively save to do, as these same tuples are also used in making 
routing decisions so are not all that easy to game arbitrarily and hence 
require little to no trust from the intermedate node basing decisions on this 
information.



> with the bloat list and I do believe that even people at NN list should read 
> it: https://pbg.cs.illinois.edu/courses/cs598fa09/readings/b07.pdf
> 
> Heck, everyone in the field should read it. Food for thought, certainly.

Respectfully, I think nobody should have to read that (unless they want 
to of course), it is way too long and misleading given the fact that it is a 
phantasy, not a realistic solution for the internet. Also I have been using 
flow queueing schedulers now for roughly a decade and can from that experience 
state, this solution is "good enough" for decent internet experience and simply 
works (at least on my link for my traffic mix). Again, I keep my response of 
NNagain, as I still am not convinces folks over there want to read more about 
this topic.


> Btw, https://www.understandinglatency.com today was great, hope more of you 
> join us tomorrow. Jason will be giving an update on "L4S Field Trial 
> Experiences", also Stuart "It's latency, stupid!" of Apple will be speaking 
> and I'm looking forward to my compatriot, Marek Pesta, with CDN77, adding 
> more knowledge to the CDN field.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Frank
> 
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> 
>  
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> 
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 
> 
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> 
> Skype: casioa5302ca
> 
> frantisek.bor...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 4:04 PM Sebastian Moeller  wrote:
> Hi Frantisek,
> 
> still keeping NNagain off-list, no need to infect yet another list with my 
> L4S aversion ;)
> 
> > On Dec 11, 2023, at 11:18, Frantisek Borsik  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > …and I’m adding NN again, because:
> > 
> > No matter which evil end game is actually the one, it will create a quite a 
> > havoc.
> 
> Not so sure about that, my expectancy is mostly that L4S is going to 
> fizzle out simply because it over-promised and under-delivers. And fizzling 
> out does not make impressive havoc...
> 
> > Seeing, for example Netflix, participating in L4S trail (they said it was 
> > for their cloud gaming,
> 
> But if we look at the DualQ from the outside we see a priority 
> scheduler with little to no organic bulk traffic (yet?) so using this for any 
> latency sensitive traffic is tempting. The bigger question for me is, does 
> Netflix' cloud gaming traffic actually respond gracefully to CE marks as 
> expected for an L5S flow, or if it is using NQB instead is it following the 
> eligibility recommendations for NQB traffic? That is, is this traffic playing 
> along the rules or not? (One of the problems with L4S is that it defines a 
> set of requirements for traffic and then fails to enforce/police these 
> requirements, making them pretty irrelevant, but I digress).
> 
> 
> > while at IETF 118) is in my mind the same like seeing a capitalist, an 
> > entrepreneur selling a rope to a bloodthirsty communist that want to create 
> > a noose to hang him on it :-) but if one don’t see/hear evil…there is no 
> > hope.
> 
> I see less diabolic evil in L4S and more ideologically* driven 
> mediocrity...
> 
> Regards
> Sebastian
> 
> 
> *) Hard to read 
> https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1=pdf=6e7364c67c13fa991c63292b281fac61dfcf40e0
>  "Flow Rate Fairness: 

Re: [Bloat] [NNagain] The Verge: The quiet plan to make the internet feel faster

[Frantisek Borsik via Bloat]

Hello Sebastian,

So you have shared that "L$S bible"  :-) with the bloat list and I do
believe that even people at NN list should read it:
https://pbg.cs.illinois.edu/courses/cs598fa09/readings/b07.pdf

Heck, everyone in the field should read it. Food for thought, certainly.

*Btw, https://www.understandinglatency.com
 today was great, hope more of you
join us tomorrow*. Jason will be giving an update on "L4S Field Trial
Experiences", also Stuart "It's latency, stupid!" of Apple will be speaking
and I'm looking forward to my compatriot, Marek Pesta, with CDN77, adding
more knowledge to the CDN field.

All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.bor...@gmail.com


On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 4:04 PM Sebastian Moeller  wrote:

> Hi Frantisek,
>
> still keeping NNagain off-list, no need to infect yet another list with my
> L4S aversion ;)
>
> > On Dec 11, 2023, at 11:18, Frantisek Borsik 
> wrote:
> >
> > …and I’m adding NN again, because:
> >
> > No matter which evil end game is actually the one, it will create a
> quite a havoc.
>
> Not so sure about that, my expectancy is mostly that L4S is going
> to fizzle out simply because it over-promised and under-delivers. And
> fizzling out does not make impressive havoc...
>
> > Seeing, for example Netflix, participating in L4S trail (they said it
> was for their cloud gaming,
>
> But if we look at the DualQ from the outside we see a priority
> scheduler with little to no organic bulk traffic (yet?) so using this for
> any latency sensitive traffic is tempting. The bigger question for me is,
> does Netflix' cloud gaming traffic actually respond gracefully to CE marks
> as expected for an L5S flow, or if it is using NQB instead is it following
> the eligibility recommendations for NQB traffic? That is, is this traffic
> playing along the rules or not? (One of the problems with L4S is that it
> defines a set of requirements for traffic and then fails to enforce/police
> these requirements, making them pretty irrelevant, but I digress).
>
>
> > while at IETF 118) is in my mind the same like seeing a capitalist, an
> entrepreneur selling a rope to a bloodthirsty communist that want to create
> a noose to hang him on it :-) but if one don’t see/hear evil…there is no
> hope.
>
> I see less diabolic evil in L4S and more ideologically* driven
> mediocrity...
>
> Regards
> Sebastian
>
>
> *) Hard to read
> https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1=pdf=6e7364c67c13fa991c63292b281fac61dfcf40e0
> "Flow Rate Fairness: Dismantling a Religion" as anything but ideologically
> driven...
>
> >
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Frank
> > Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> >
> > https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> > Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> > iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> > Skype: casioa5302ca
> > frantisek.bor...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 10:52 AM, Sebastian Moeller 
> wrote:
> > Hi Frantisek,
> >
> > steering this to the bloat list, as I have a hunch my response might not
> be appropriate for the wide audience in NNagain even though this can have
> NN ramifications.
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 11, 2023, at 10:50, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain <
> nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Top story on HN:
> > >
> > > h++ps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38597744
> > >
> > > My pick for top comment:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > > A possible L4S end game? 
> >
> > Unlikely, as that would e.g. violate EU directive 2015/2120 too
> blatantly. My take is more subtle, L4S is essentially a technique that only
> works well for short RTTs and the end game is to make datacenter space
> inside eyeball-ISPs much more desirable and hence yielding higher prices...
> L4S effectively increases TCPs existing RTT bias* and hence makes long
> range L4S connections undesirable/under-performing, and that implies that
> content providers that want to use L4S will need to get their servers/CDNs
> close to the eye-balls. But hey, I would love to be wrong and ISPs jus do
> this out of the goodness of their hearts... (only then I would politely ask
> the to deploy a flow queueing AQM instead of DualQ, as that in one swoop
> will solve a ship-load of L4S problems).
> >
> > Regards
> > Sebastian
> >
> >
> > *) L4S argues that this is not an increase, but that due to removing
> traditional TCP's excess queueing it just reveals TCPs inherent RTT bias;
> IMHO that is a bull shit argument since the root cause is not important,
> what matters is that with L4S RTT bias becomes measurably worse.
> >
> >
> > P.S.: I think my mail provider marks outgoing mails with too many links
> as SPAM, so I need to make the URLs invisible, and I believe replacing the
> t's in h t t p with plus signs does the trick...
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > All the 

Re: [Bloat] [NNagain] The Verge: The quiet plan to make the internet feel faster

[Sebastian Moeller via Bloat]

Hi Frantisek,

still keeping NNagain off-list, no need to infect yet another list with my L4S 
aversion ;)

> On Dec 11, 2023, at 11:18, Frantisek Borsik  
> wrote:
> 
> …and I’m adding NN again, because:
> 
> No matter which evil end game is actually the one, it will create a quite a 
> havoc.

Not so sure about that, my expectancy is mostly that L4S is going to 
fizzle out simply because it over-promised and under-delivers. And fizzling out 
does not make impressive havoc...

> Seeing, for example Netflix, participating in L4S trail (they said it was for 
> their cloud gaming,

But if we look at the DualQ from the outside we see a priority 
scheduler with little to no organic bulk traffic (yet?) so using this for any 
latency sensitive traffic is tempting. The bigger question for me is, does 
Netflix' cloud gaming traffic actually respond gracefully to CE marks as 
expected for an L5S flow, or if it is using NQB instead is it following the 
eligibility recommendations for NQB traffic? That is, is this traffic playing 
along the rules or not? (One of the problems with L4S is that it defines a set 
of requirements for traffic and then fails to enforce/police these 
requirements, making them pretty irrelevant, but I digress).


> while at IETF 118) is in my mind the same like seeing a capitalist, an 
> entrepreneur selling a rope to a bloodthirsty communist that want to create a 
> noose to hang him on it :-) but if one don’t see/hear evil…there is no hope.

I see less diabolic evil in L4S and more ideologically* driven 
mediocrity...

Regards
Sebastian


*) Hard to read 
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1=pdf=6e7364c67c13fa991c63292b281fac61dfcf40e0
 "Flow Rate Fairness: Dismantling a Religion" as anything but ideologically 
driven...

> 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Frank
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> Skype: casioa5302ca
> frantisek.bor...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 10:52 AM, Sebastian Moeller  wrote:
> Hi Frantisek,
> 
> steering this to the bloat list, as I have a hunch my response might not be 
> appropriate for the wide audience in NNagain even though this can have NN 
> ramifications.
> 
> 
> > On Dec 11, 2023, at 10:50, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > Top story on HN:
> > 
> > h++ps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38597744
> > 
> > My pick for top comment:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > A possible L4S end game?  
> 
> Unlikely, as that would e.g. violate EU directive 2015/2120 too blatantly. My 
> take is more subtle, L4S is essentially a technique that only works well for 
> short RTTs and the end game is to make datacenter space inside eyeball-ISPs 
> much more desirable and hence yielding higher prices... L4S effectively 
> increases TCPs existing RTT bias* and hence makes long range L4S connections 
> undesirable/under-performing, and that implies that content providers that 
> want to use L4S will need to get their servers/CDNs close to the eye-balls. 
> But hey, I would love to be wrong and ISPs jus do this out of the goodness of 
> their hearts... (only then I would politely ask the to deploy a flow queueing 
> AQM instead of DualQ, as that in one swoop will solve a ship-load of L4S 
> problems).
> 
> Regards
> Sebastian
> 
> 
> *) L4S argues that this is not an increase, but that due to removing 
> traditional TCP's excess queueing it just reveals TCPs inherent RTT bias; 
> IMHO that is a bull shit argument since the root cause is not important, what 
> matters is that with L4S RTT bias becomes measurably worse.
> 
> 
> P.S.: I think my mail provider marks outgoing mails with too many links as 
> SPAM, so I need to make the URLs invisible, and I believe replacing the t's 
> in h t t p with plus signs does the trick... 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > All the best,
> > 
> > Frank
> > Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> > 
> > h++ps://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> > Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 
> > iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> > Skype: casioa5302ca
> > frantisek.bor...@gmail.com
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 at 7:22 PM, Robert McMahon via Nnagain 
> >  wrote:
> > Sorry, this isn't a very good technical analysis. It's a push agenda for 
> > AQM. I get that many people's egos are tied to their belief that my 
> > algorithm came down from God himself. It's not true though. 
> > 
> > 
> > Bob
> > On Dec 10, 2023, at 3:12 AM, Sauli Kiviranta via Nnagain 
> >  wrote:
> > I find it alarming for the future of internet that there is a trend to
> > use elbowing techniques to squeeze metrics out at the expense of all
> > other flows. We know that when nobody plays fair the arms race ends
> > badly.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Sauli
> > 
> > On 12/10/23, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain  
> > wrote:
> >  Well, to be completely honest, I would say its about general public, really
> >  - it’s an 

Re: [Bloat] [NNagain] The Verge: The quiet plan to make the internet feel faster

[Frantisek Borsik via Bloat]

…and I’m adding NN again, because:

No matter which evil end game is actually the one, it will create a quite a
havoc.

Seeing, for example Netflix, participating in L4S trail (they said it was
for their cloud gaming, while at IETF 118) is in my mind the same like
seeing a capitalist, an entrepreneur selling a rope to a bloodthirsty
communist that want to create a noose to hang him on it :-) but if one
don’t see/hear evil…there is no hope.


All the best,

Frank
Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
Skype: casioa5302ca
frantisek.bor...@gmail.com


On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 10:52 AM, Sebastian Moeller  wrote:

> Hi Frantisek,
>
> steering this to the bloat list, as I have a hunch my response might not
> be appropriate for the wide audience in NNagain even though this can have
> NN ramifications.
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 2023, at 10:50, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain <
> nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> > Top story on HN:
> >
> > h++ps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38597744
> >
> > My pick for top comment:
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > A possible L4S end game? 
>
> Unlikely, as that would e.g. violate EU directive 2015/2120 too blatantly.
> My take is more subtle, L4S is essentially a technique that only works well
> for short RTTs and the end game is to make datacenter space inside
> eyeball-ISPs much more desirable and hence yielding higher prices... L4S
> effectively increases TCPs existing RTT bias* and hence makes long range
> L4S connections undesirable/under-performing, and that implies that content
> providers that want to use L4S will need to get their servers/CDNs close to
> the eye-balls. But hey, I would love to be wrong and ISPs jus do this out
> of the goodness of their hearts... (only then I would politely ask the to
> deploy a flow queueing AQM instead of DualQ, as that in one swoop will
> solve a ship-load of L4S problems).
>
> Regards
> Sebastian
>
>
> *) L4S argues that this is not an increase, but that due to removing
> traditional TCP's excess queueing it just reveals TCPs inherent RTT bias;
> IMHO that is a bull shit argument since the root cause is not important,
> what matters is that with L4S RTT bias becomes measurably worse.
>
>
> P.S.: I think my mail provider marks outgoing mails with too many links as
> SPAM, so I need to make the URLs invisible, and I believe replacing the t's
> in h t t p with plus signs does the trick...
>
>
> >
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Frank
> > Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> >
> > h++ps://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> > Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> > iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> > Skype: casioa5302ca
> > frantisek.bor...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 at 7:22 PM, Robert McMahon via Nnagain <
> nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > Sorry, this isn't a very good technical analysis. It's a push agenda for
> AQM. I get that many people's egos are tied to their belief that my
> algorithm came down from God himself. It's not true though.
> >
> >
> > Bob
> > On Dec 10, 2023, at 3:12 AM, Sauli Kiviranta via Nnagain <
> nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > I find it alarming for the future of internet that there is a trend to
> > use elbowing techniques to squeeze metrics out at the expense of all
> > other flows. We know that when nobody plays fair the arms race ends
> > badly.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Sauli
> >
> > On 12/10/23, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain 
> wrote:
> >  Well, to be completely honest, I would say its about general public,
> really
> >  - it’s an article in The Verge :-)
> >
> >  But yeah. Here’s something they should address:
> >
> >  h++ps://github.com/heistp/l4s-tests#key-findings
> >
> >  In general - a potential harm to innocent bystanders is a biggest L4S
> >  problem:
> >  h++ps://
> www.linkedin.com/posts/frantisekborsik_jonathanmorton-l4s-ietf118-activity-7128317873571176448-GWAX
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  All the best,
> >
> >  Frank
> >  Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> >
> >  h++ps://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> >  Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> >  iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> >  Skype: casioa5302ca
> >  frantisek.bor...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >  On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 at 5:48 AM, Matt Mathis via Nnagain <
> >  nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> >  About L4S
> >
> >  h++ps://
> www.theverge.com/23655762/l4s-internet-apple-comcast-latency-speed-bandwidth
> >
> >  It says something about their target audience that they feel they need
> to
> >  explain bytes vs bits.
> >
> >  Thanks,
> >  --MM--
> >  Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force
> >  to apply it to others.
> >
> >  Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> >  Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> >
> >
> >  Nnagain mailing list
> >  nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >  h++ps://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >
> >
> >
> > Nnagain mailing list
> 

Re: [Bloat] [NNagain] The Verge: The quiet plan to make the internet feel faster

[Sebastian Moeller via Bloat]

Hi Frantisek,

steering this to the bloat list, as I have a hunch my response might not be 
appropriate for the wide audience in NNagain even though this can have NN 
ramifications.


> On Dec 11, 2023, at 10:50, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain 
>  wrote:
> 
> Top story on HN:
> 
> h++ps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38597744
> 
> My pick for top comment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A possible L4S end game?  

Unlikely, as that would e.g. violate EU directive 2015/2120 too blatantly. My 
take is more subtle, L4S is essentially a technique that only works well for 
short RTTs and the end game is to make datacenter space inside eyeball-ISPs 
much more desirable and hence yielding higher prices... L4S effectively 
increases TCPs existing RTT bias* and hence makes long range L4S connections 
undesirable/under-performing, and that implies that content providers that want 
to use L4S will need to get their servers/CDNs close to the eye-balls. But hey, 
I would love to be wrong and ISPs jus do this out of the goodness of their 
hearts... (only then I would politely ask the to deploy a flow queueing AQM 
instead of DualQ, as that in one swoop will solve a ship-load of L4S problems).

Regards
Sebastian


*) L4S argues that this is not an increase, but that due to removing 
traditional TCP's excess queueing it just reveals TCPs inherent RTT bias; IMHO 
that is a bull shit argument since the root cause is not important, what 
matters is that with L4S RTT bias becomes measurably worse.


P.S.: I think my mail provider marks outgoing mails with too many links as 
SPAM, so I need to make the URLs invisible, and I believe replacing the t's in 
h t t p with plus signs does the trick... 


> 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Frank
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> 
> h++ps://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> Skype: casioa5302ca
> frantisek.bor...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 at 7:22 PM, Robert McMahon via Nnagain 
>  wrote:
> Sorry, this isn't a very good technical analysis. It's a push agenda for AQM. 
> I get that many people's egos are tied to their belief that my algorithm came 
> down from God himself. It's not true though. 
> 
> 
> Bob
> On Dec 10, 2023, at 3:12 AM, Sauli Kiviranta via Nnagain 
>  wrote:
> I find it alarming for the future of internet that there is a trend to
> use elbowing techniques to squeeze metrics out at the expense of all
> other flows. We know that when nobody plays fair the arms race ends
> badly.
> 
> Best regards,
> Sauli
> 
> On 12/10/23, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain  
> wrote:
>  Well, to be completely honest, I would say its about general public, really
>  - it’s an article in The Verge :-)
> 
>  But yeah. Here’s something they should address:
> 
>  h++ps://github.com/heistp/l4s-tests#key-findings
> 
>  In general - a potential harm to innocent bystanders is a biggest L4S
>  problem:
>  
> h++ps://www.linkedin.com/posts/frantisekborsik_jonathanmorton-l4s-ietf118-activity-7128317873571176448-GWAX
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  All the best,
> 
>  Frank
>  Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> 
>  h++ps://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>  Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>  iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>  Skype: casioa5302ca
>  frantisek.bor...@gmail.com
> 
> 
>  On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 at 5:48 AM, Matt Mathis via Nnagain <
>  nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
>  About L4S
> 
>  
> h++ps://www.theverge.com/23655762/l4s-internet-apple-comcast-latency-speed-bandwidth
> 
>  It says something about their target audience that they feel they need to
>  explain bytes vs bits.
> 
>  Thanks,
>  --MM--
>  Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force
>  to apply it to others.
> 
>  Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
>  Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> 
> 
>  Nnagain mailing list
>  nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net
>  h++ps://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> 
> 
> 
> Nnagain mailing list
> nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net
> h++ps://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> ___
> Nnagain mailing list
> nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net
> h++ps://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> ___
> Nnagain mailing list
> nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net
> h++ps://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat