Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels and please dont start a uS NN debate here unless you really want to.

[Richard Shockey <[e-mail]>]

Fine now how do you get the labeling/queueing across the AS boundary?  I
don’t know any ISP that accepts or recognizes the packet labeling of
another AS.



On 2/6/15, 12:28 PM, "Piers O'Hanlon" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>On 6 Feb 2015, at 16:57, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>> 
>> Jim Gettys <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> ​What effect does this algorithm have in practice? Here are some
>>>examples:
>>> o real time isochronous traffic​ (such as VOIP, skype, etc) won't build
>>> a queue, so will be scheduled in preference to your bulk data.
>>> o your DNS traffic will be prioritized.
>>> o your TCP open handshakes will be prioritized
>>> o your DHCP & RA handshakes will be prioritized
>>> o your handshakes for TLS will be prioritized
>>> o any simple request/response protocol with small messages.
>>> o the first packet or so of a TCP transfer will be prioritized:
>>>remember,
>>> that packet may have the size information needed for web page layout
>>>in it.
>>> o There is a *positive* incentive for flows to pace their traffic (i.e.
>>> to be a good network citizen, rather than always transmitting at line
>>>rate).
>> 
>>> *All without needing any explicit classification.  No identification of
>>> what application is running is being performed at all in this
>>>algorithm.*
>> 
>> This last part is I think the part that needs to be shouted at
>>residential
>> ISPs on a regular basis.  I wish that the IETF and ISOC was better able
>>to
>> do this... in particular to ISPs which do not tend to send the right
>>people
>> to NANOG/RIPE/etc.
>> 
>Explicit class-based queueing is seeing fairly substantial deployment in
>some places - such as the UK - where for a few years now the default home
>routers (Thomson/Technicolor TG587/582 etc) for a number of the big ISPs
>(Plusnet, O2/Sky, Talk-talk and others) have shipped preconfigured with 5
>queuing classes that classify traffic and provide for differing
>treatment. They also have some ALGs that work with SIP/H.323. I'm not
>aware of AQM enabled on the individual queues but at least they separate
>the traffic into different queues - albeit based on port number or ALG
>classifiers. Better than nothing anyway.
>
>Also the DOCSIS3.1 standard now mandates the use an AQM - namely PIE,
>though others can be implemented. I'm not sure where that is in terms of
>deployment though. There's a good report on it here:
>http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Active_Queue_Managemen
>t_Algorithms_DOCSIS_3_0.pdf
>
>Piers
>
>
>> --
>> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh
>>networks [
>> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network
>>architect  [
>> ]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on
>>rails    [
>> 
>