[tsvwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gwhiteCL/NQBdraft] Should traffic protection be mandatory to implement? (Issue #48)

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jason,

On 24 July 2024 23:34:33 CEST, "Livingood, Jason" <jason_livingood=[e-mail]> wrote:
>> [SM] In the case of an mischieviuos application however that tries to achieve more than its equitable share, the user is not really in control of the decision, unlike when actively configuring priority for an application the users deems important...
>
>The user can uninstall the software. If I install some app and it suddenly makes my computer or network perform poorly, I will uninstall it. 

[SM] I am not doubting that this is what the typical IETFer can and will do, but I am sure most of e.g. my wider family will not be able to root cause this.

>This is the case before and after NQB, as we have been saying. 

[SM] Not exactly, NQB/L4S will make this much simpler, exactly because at their core they offer an unpoliced priority scheduler... while pretending there is nothing to gain from abusing that....

>
>Scenarios I have heard: 
>1. Client software is malicious and tries to flood the LL queue. 

[SM] No, not flooding indiscriminately, the trick is to stay below the priority capacity share of the NQB/L-queue...

>- Unique to LL? No: client software today could create a disruptive flood of traffic. 

[SM] Flooding is denial of service, but that is not the issue here.

>
>2. User tries to maliciously flood the LL queue in their access network connection.  
>- Unique to LL? No: users can maliciously flood their connection today.

[SM] Again flooding is not the key to the castle here. This is about the claim, that it is in the best interest of each application to follow the nqb/l4s recommendations to avoid self harm. This is IMHO so far an unproven hypothesis to phrase it positively.

>
>3. ?

[SM] Application tries to hog more then its user intended/expected share of capacity for what ever purposes (from just expediting its own bulk down/uploads to running a tunneled p2p instance at the users expense to come up with a phantasy idea how to abuse access capacity). And for this some of the users might even be okay with that behavior (e.g. the gamer who really wants that 100GB update ASAP) but what about the othe users that expect their reasonable capacity shar for e.g. homeoffice/remote work/video conferences? 
Fast lanes are really only okay if opted-in by the respective network admin, and priority scheduling is creating a "fast lane" whether we call it that or not.

>
>JL
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.