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

Richard Shockey <> Fri, 06 February 2015 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EFE1A1A52 for <>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 10:25:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.666
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5viUa1QIF0ne for <>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 10:25:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 617151A19E5 for <>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 10:25:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 21503 invoked by uid 0); 6 Feb 2015 18:25:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) ( by with SMTP; 6 Feb 2015 18:25:10 -0000
Received: from ([]) by CMOut01 with id p6Qy1p00u1MNPNq016R1cT; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:25:04 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=J8Y5smXS c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:117 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=Fm5PWBbyStgA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=8WrITzYgnNwA:10 a=HGEM6zKYvpEA:10 a=0HtSIViG9nkA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=e5mUnYsNAAAA:8 a=jU2thFBwAAAA:8 a=l70xHGcnAAAA:8 a=oogd-5amXnlEc6tS23EA:9 a=d5DfWwk3s9iRCUXC:21 a=kt5HxmSWLV6M0RDR:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=4sb7NoS-cSMA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-transfer-encoding:Content-type:Mime-version:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:CC:To:From:Subject:Date; bh=+U2Bkj+TwKTpCIOdiu6H5tAMUuEvsVUnV9qxEdOAJQY=; b=d3PCFt2KH8h1Hj0e//J+chaID174LeShpqaO0IH7vx2S8sYbsTXlr17yHwZjaifqlTe598EJVP9sQpGsH+qhvQ3IaB1p+fBo+8d8zN3YybjozILs1NsW1iKd+FLAK5JP;
Received: from [] (port=51437 helo=[]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <>) id 1YJnaM-0007nh-HF; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:24:59 -0700
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:24:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels and please dont start a uS NN debate here unless you really want to.
From: Richard Shockey <>
To: Piers O'Hanlon <>, Michael Richardson <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels and please dont start a uS NN debate here unless you really want to.
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-Identified-User: {} {sentby:smtp auth authed with}
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 18:25:12 -0000

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" <> wrote:

>On 6 Feb 2015, at 16:57, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> Jim Gettys <> wrote:
>>> ​What effect does this algorithm have in practice? Here are some
>>> 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:
>>> 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
>>> *All without needing any explicit classification.  No identification of
>>> what application is running is being performed at all in this
>> This last part is I think the part that needs to be shouted at
>> ISPs on a regular basis.  I wish that the IETF and ISOC was better able
>> do this... in particular to ISPs which do not tend to send the right
>> 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:
>> --
>> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh
>>networks [
>> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network
>>architect  [
>> ]        |   ruby on
>>rails    [