> On Mar 16, 2019, at 10:42, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
> Good question! …. on Windows in particular, I’d really like to know this too.
Well, as far as I can tell it is the group policy editor that is the
tool to assign DSCPs to applications, IMHO that is exactly the right place,
somewhere where the administrator/enduser can set her desired policy
(personally I am fine with applications also using sensible defaults, as long
as the user can override them all is well). The catch seems to be that group
policies require a domain controller and are hence not available on stand-alond
windows home installations. Anybody with deep contacts to microsoft here, that
could try to get an sub-official standpoint from MS on the issue of opening the
group policy editor up for everybody (at least the dscp marking part)?
Best Regards
Sebastian
>
> The WebRTC Javascript API allows one to influence the DSCP, i.e. browsers
> normally can do that. Whether that’s true for all OSes, I don’t know.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
>
>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 12:45 AM, David P. Reed <dpr...@deepplum.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
