I will be in D.C., presenting https://www.cs.kau.se/tohojo/cake/ - next week.
If there are people to see, asses to kick or kiss, I'm up for it, let me know. Presently I just plan to give my talk and get the heck out of dodge. One of cake's "minor" features is the *perfect* defeat of the htb based shaper in cable modems. If you know the set-rate on the modem, you just set it to the same thing and get vastly superior performance to docsis 3.1, pie, or the sqm-scripts. On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:43 PM, dpr...@deepplum.com <dpr...@deepplum.com> wrote: > I have been one of the most prominent advocates of network neutrality. I'm > constantly informing my friends and the press about "buffering" not being > related to neutrality at all. > > > > I think that's the best we can do. > > > > Packet neutrality is actually a key part of the Internet's design, pushing > control mechanisms to the edge, with a minimum of "intelligence" in the > routers/switches/gateways. In particular, "content-based" and > "endpoint-address-based" targeted throttling was never how the Internet > Protocol layer was supposed to work. That's a fundamental result of the > "end-to-end argument" applied to congestion management. I've spent a lot of > time on that issue technically. The original discussions going back before > Van Jacobson's early work, up to RED and ECN, all are based on providing > congestion signalling sufficient to cause endpoints competing for resources > to adapt their behavior cooperatively in real time, while maintaining > minimal latency under load. > > > > Latency under load is the crucial metric across the entire IP layer, > endpoints and routers. It's clear that minimizing latency under load has to > be achieved by avoiding buffering insite the network, moving it to the > source (and destination). > > > > I've given this lecture to policy people a lot. In fact, deliberate creation > of "bloat" is a technical strategy that has been used in the past to destroy > VoIP and other real-time communicaitons. Microsoft was caught doing it > decades ago, as were some other conflicted communicaitons providers. They > could selectively delay small packets using DPI, while letting FTPs get full > speed. That's one of the reasons we coined the idea of Network Neutrality. > > > > But radical right wingers of the sort that blossom in the paranoid world of > the dark net started arguing that the routers should have political freedom > to do whatever they damn well pleased with packets, because routers are > people just like corporations, and a "free market" is the solution to > everything. > > > > Well, technically, the Internet doesn't work if their is not some mechanism > for eliminiating lag under load by eliminating queueing delay in bottleneck > nodes. > > > > That's ultimately what Network Neutrality is about. There's a lot of other > crap being pushed by folks who pile on to the Network Neutrality discussion. > People want to "fix prices" for example, arguing that profits are bad. Those > guys are not the problem. > > > > The problem is that the vertically integrated monopolists want to claim that > the Internet should be subject to Deep Packet Inspection at every router, > designed to charge rents based on content of the packets and who is the > original sender or destination of the packet - that is, charging Netflix or > NBC Universal packets nothing, and charging IPFS packets 100x as much. > > > > So, no, the Network Neutrality people are NOT the problem with Bufferbloat. > > > > Comcast, on the other hand, has been slow-rolling DOCSIS 3.0, because their > customers on DOCSIS 2.0 are just ordering faster service tiers to overcome > the Bufferbloat in their DOCSIS 2 CMTS's. > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Dave Taht" <dave.t...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 3:07pm > To: "dpr...@deepplum.com" <dpr...@deepplum.com> > Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, "bloat" > <bl...@lists.bufferbloat.net> > Subject: Re: Invisibility of bufferbloat and its remedies > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:26 AM, dpr...@deepplum.com > <dpr...@deepplum.com> wrote: >> https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/3-easy-tips-to-fix-constant-buffering/ >> >> It's distressing how little the tech press understands the real problem. > > Yea, that one is pretty sad. > > It still remains a field of active academic research: > > https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2018&q=bufferbloat&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 > >> >> Of course, cable companies like Charter and ATT who have mostly DOCSIS 2 >> gear deployed can't admit to their plant being bloat-causing. >> >> In fact it protects their cable business against cord cutters. > > Lacking competition in general, doesn't help. > > What I am actually more frustrated about is the network neutrality > advocates A) conflating "buffering" with malfeasance, rather than a > technical problem > and B) Using politics rather than technology to attempt to achieve > their goals. If *only* a few prominent members of that side of affairs > "got" that some better technology, deployed, might solve some of their > problems and make the internet better for everyone, we'd make more > progress. > > fq_codel is a uniquely "american" algorithm, in that it gives the > "little guy" a little boost until it achieves parity with everyone > else. > >> >> And the solution is needed in the CMTS once neighbors all start becoming >> heavier users, because it is a shared buffering pool with no fairness or >> bloat protection. > > My principle observation is that with the changes in traffic patterns > in the last decade, and the predominance of application-rate limited > streaming, that most > folk are merely forced into a bandwidth tier that is less rarely > annoying. This does not of course solve the corporate gateway problems > very well, nor does it truly kill it dead, but until that day when > "the right stuff" is readily available, and more informed demand > exists. > > I was sad to see recently a cisco white paper that even ignored their > own work on pie. > >> Still, routers with queue management that reduce bloat would help a lot, >> if "buffering" is seen frequently under load. >> >> So why isn't anyone talking about this problem after at least a decade of >> knowing it, and knowing how to fix it? >> >> I blame IETF members, individually and collectively. If ietf exists for >> any reason other than as a boondoggle for world travel, it's for resolving >> issues like this one. > > Heh. I have essentially abandoned the IETF as the inmates are running > the asylum, and trying to continue to make our points there was > seemingly fruitless > - and out of my budget. I'd rather stay home and get better code out > the door. Or come up with some other set of orgs to annoy into paying > attention. > > I would not mind going to another IETF meeting to give a preso (on, > say, cake), but I'm unwilling to front the funds or time anymore. > > >> > > > > -- > > Dave Täht > CEO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-669-226-2619 -- Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619 _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel