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

Piers O'Hanlon <> Fri, 06 February 2015 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F531A7004; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:28:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lJVI6-u1Shmv; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:28:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D716A1A1B3E; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:28:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id h11so4113153wiw.0; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:28:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=MQoEk4ArzO2+cDd04a+D9EO+hhCokWFFq2ZpjQ4UvYM=; b=Ko/+RBHA6MXeEJw2Co8Hud/uMjHxcCYFcDix8snf1D+WPD0RyZ76BhRYUzw2mr8K96 6dyFVMU2StPobadt3IKZhc4YHg8Uf3bjRiLd6lVz8d1MCcllXsCnazjIt15p5y7yqJO2 XTWIMaxMuxw8w9p3O3FIjp84jkvRZuR2OqCiZ6BPUx1/nasNjK//VQredfQeVCIOsX98 CDbrp9zCgTmBy72aSNvqD/btKNvTYohkUgoObgODJcaLRid8E3jWcYMsDE2nGImVppxP 3GRJZOl8ouIKcu+a925HN1sTypWMxAX9QU2/pELqIEu/i6cRRiEGI51jIks3AnUeFPH8 DSLw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id i4mr5486448wie.13.1423243734338; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:28:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from black.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id n3sm4175767wja.36.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:28:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels and please dont start a uS NN debate here unless you really want to.
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
From: Piers O'Hanlon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 17:28:50 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <>, Richard Shockey <>, 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 17:28:59 -0000

On 6 Feb 2015, at 16:57, Michael Richardson wrote:

> Jim Gettys <> 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:


> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
> ]        |   ruby on rails    [