Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful"

Curtis Villamizar <> Thu, 05 March 2015 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A961A854D for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:59:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.013
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4L_TECW-NV2d for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:59:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4830:c400:203::3131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8771E1A854B for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:59:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4830:c400:203::3231]) (authenticated bits=128) by (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t25IuXok099060; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:56:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from
Message-Id: <>
To: Dave Taht <>
From: Curtis Villamizar <>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:24:59 -0800." <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:56:33 -0500
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Wesley Eddy <>, bloat <>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:59:17 -0000

In message <>
Dave Taht writes:
> My point was A), I have seen tons of shapers out there that actually
> prioritize ping over other traffic. I figure everyone here will agree
> that is a terrible practice, but I can certainly say it exists, as it
> is a dumb mistake replicated in tons of shapers I have seen... that
> makes people in marketing happy.
> Already put up extensive commentary on that bit of foolishness on
> "wondershaper must die".

Its possible to detect such a shaper prioritizing ICMP echo/reply by
doing a an HTTP fetch concurrent with a ping and then and see if the
TCP data packet get significantly delayed relative to the ICMP echo
and echo reply packets.  You'd have to do a tcpdump and match the ICMP
echo to the echo reply and see if later the ICMP RTT looks very
different from the TCP RTT.  It might be that the SYN and SYN ACK are
not delayed but the plain old TCP date packets are.

If anyone has a small amount of spare time and wants to put together a
shell script its certainly doable.