How many applications used by normal users have "admin" privileges? The
Browser? Email? FTP?
-----Original Message-----
From: "Dave Taht" <dave.t...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 4:31pm
To: "Jonathan Foulkes" <j...@jonathanfoulkes.com>
Cc: ecn-s...@lists.bufferbloat.net, "bloat" <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] [Bloat] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and
experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 1:28 PM Jonathan Foulkes <j...@jonathanfoulkes.com>
wrote:
>
> All this discussion of DSCP marking brings to mind what happened on the
> Windows platform, where the OS had to suppress ALL DSCP marks, as app authors
> were trying to game the system.
> And even if not trying to ‘game’ it, they have non-obvious reasons why they
> don’t mark traffic how one would expect. Example:
>
> I know an engineer who works at a cloud-storage solution company, and I asked
> why a long-standing customer request for DSCP marking (as bulk) was not
> implemented. His answer was they’d never do that, as that would impact
> benchmarks against their competitors for which service syncs faster. <sigh>
>
> Which brings me to a question: Is anyone aware of an easy to use Windows app
> that will allow the user to select an application and tell the OS to mark the
> traffic (all or by port) with a user selected DSCP level?
> There are many guides on using regedit and other error-prone (and geek-only)
> means of doing this, but is there a simple Windows 10 home app?
When I last tried it (years ago), in order to set the tos bits, an
application merely had to have admin privs.
> Now that Cake is out there with simple DiffServ3 support, it would be nice to
> lower the priority of cloud-storage services and other bulk traffic by
> correctly marking it at the origin.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jonathan Foulkes
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 2019, at 3:32 PM, Jonathan Morton <chromati...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 15 Mar, 2019, at 8:36 pm, Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> >>
> >> Having a "lower-than-best-effort" diffserve codepoint might work, because
> >> it means worse treatment, not preferential treatment.
> >>
> >> The problem with having DSCP CPs that indicate preferential treatment is
> >> typically a ddos magnet.
> >
> > This is true, and also why I feel that just 2 bits should be sufficient for
> > Diffserv (rather than 6). They are sufficient to express four different
> > optimisation targets:
> >
> > 0: Maximum Throughput (aka Best Effort)
> > 1: Minimum Cost (aka Least Effort)
> > 2: Minimum Latency (aka Maximum Responsiveness)
> > 3: Minimum Loss (aka Maximum Reliability)
> >
> > It is legitimate for traffic to request any of these four optimisations,
> > with the explicit tradeoff of *not* necessarily getting optimisation in the
> > other three dimensions.
> >
> > The old TOS spec erred in specifying 4 non-exclusive bits to express this,
> > in addition to 3 bits for a telegram-office style "priority level" (which
> > was very much ripe for abuse if not strictly admission-controlled). TOS was
> > rightly considered a mess, but was replaced with Diffserv which was far too
> > loose a spec to be useful in practice.
> >
> > But that's a separate topic from ECN per se.
> >
> > - Jonathan Morton
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bloat mailing list
> > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
--
Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-205-9740
_______________________________________________
Ecn-sane mailing list
ecn-s...@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat