Send Outages-discussion mailing list submissions to
outages-discussion@outages.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
outages-discussion-requ...@outages.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
outages-discussion-ow...@outages.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Outages-discussion digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: NTT - High Latency between Dallas and LA exchanges
(Joseph Jackson)
2. Re: NTT - High Latency between Dallas and LA exchanges
(Patrick W. Gilmore)
3. Re: NTT - High Latency between Dallas and LA exchanges
(John Kristoff)
4. Re: NTT - High Latency between Dallas and LA exchanges
(Ross Tajvar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 13:04:20 +0000
From: Joseph Jackson <jjack...@aninetworks.net>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patr...@ianai.net>, Gert Doering
<g...@greenie.muc.de>
Cc: Outages Discussion <outages-discussion@outages.org>
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] NTT - High Latency between Dallas
and LA exchanges
Message-ID:
<cy8pr17mb62603456c72dfcb2871d2ddddb...@cy8pr17mb6260.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
As a voip provider whose traffic is almost all UDP and a lot of it I had no
idea this was something that people, much less ISPs thought. I have never
come across the idea that UDP traffic through routers at least in my experience
was being rate limited.
Joseph
________________________________
From: Outages-discussion <outages-discussion-boun...@outages.org> on behalf of
Gert Doering via Outages-discussion <outages-discussion@outages.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 7:56 AM
To: Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net>
Cc: Outages Discussion <outages-discussion@outages.org>
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] NTT - High Latency between Dallas and LA
exchanges
Hi,
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 08:18:58AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore via
Outages-discussion wrote:
> Yet you think this is Google???s fault by advocating for an open protocol
> which has objective benefits to end users? What am I missing?
Building a new protocol on top of UDP when it's well-known that many
ISPs rate-limit UDP (due to "there is no large amounts of UDP in the
wide area Internet, except for reflective DDoS crap") is not exactly
a very smart move.
Nothing about QUIC is really a smart move, beyond "we're google, we can
do what we want" - and IETF being what it is, if you have strong enough
vendor backing, you can get anything standardized.
gert
--
"If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you
feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted
it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor."
Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
_______________________________________________
Outages-discussion mailing list
Outages-discussion@outages.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages-discussion/attachments/20230518/c340e210/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 09:09:10 -0400
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patr...@ianai.net>
To: Outages Discussion <outages-discussion@outages.org>
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] NTT - High Latency between Dallas
and LA exchanges
Message-ID: <1826ce4b-e33e-4044-ac64-219cacc5c...@ianai.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On May 18, 2023, at 08:56, Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de> wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 08:18:58AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore via
> Outages-discussion wrote:
>> Yet you think this is Google???s fault by advocating for an open protocol
>> which has objective benefits to end users? What am I missing?
>
> Building a new protocol on top of UDP when it's well-known that many
> ISPs rate-limit UDP (due to "there is no large amounts of UDP in the
> wide area Internet, except for reflective DDoS crap") is not exactly
> a very smart move.
>
> Nothing about QUIC is really a smart move, beyond "we're google, we can
> do what we want" - and IETF being what it is, if you have strong enough
> vendor backing, you can get anything standardized.
TCP has run into problems and limitations Dr. Kahn & Dr. Cerf could not have
envisioned in the 70s. (I guess 1980 is when v4 was finally standardized, but
still.) QUIC avoids some of those limitations and has helped improve the
experience of literally billions of people (and devices). How exactly does that
equate to not being ?a smart move??
As for ?vendor backing?, it takes more than an IETF RFC to be accepted and
adopted. (Citation: IPv6.) Also, I was specifically speaking of "side-step the
protocol
stack?. It is, by definition, not side-stepping the protocol stack.
Look, if you don?t like QUIC, no worries. I do not work for Google, and I am
not trying to tell you how to run your apps or your network. But QUIC is a real
protocol used by real people that has real benefits over TCP/HTTP. Claiming
otherwise is, frankly, silly.
--
TTFN,
patrick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages-discussion/attachments/20230518/b00ed15d/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 08:59:00 -0500
From: John Kristoff <j...@dataplane.org>
To: Joseph Jackson via Outages-discussion
<outages-discussion@outages.org>
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] NTT - High Latency between Dallas
and LA exchanges
Message-ID: <20230518085900.28747...@dataplane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 18 May 2023 13:04:20 +0000
Joseph Jackson via Outages-discussion <outages-discussion@outages.org>
wrote:
> As a voip provider whose traffic is almost all UDP and a lot of it I
> had no idea this was something that people, much less ISPs thought.
> I have never come across the idea that UDP traffic through routers at
> least in my experience was being rate limited.
I don't know how widespread it is, but this was precisely something I
had done many years ago before QUIC. Slammer was what stimulated me to
implement "edge" rate limits on UDP traffic towards external
destinations at an edu. So for example, ingress to the network
traffic from an end user subnet I set a max of 10 Mb/s for UDP traffic
not destined to internal prefixes.
I left the organization and came back years later. When there were
complaints of some random real-time game performance I discovered
someone had later put an aggregate limit of about 100 to 200 Mb/s for
UDP at peering routers, and with the rise of the QUIC, that limit was
now being reached by the total sum of UDP traffic from all internal
subnets. I preceded to get rid of the hard coded UDP limits with this
new reality. It seemed like a reasonable thing to do at the time, but
not so much now. Like manually configured bogon filters I would assume
there may be similar cases lurking out there.
John
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 15:09:53 -0400
From: Ross Tajvar <r...@tajvar.io>
To: John Kristoff <j...@dataplane.org>
Cc: Joseph Jackson via Outages-discussion
<outages-discussion@outages.org>
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] NTT - High Latency between Dallas
and LA exchanges
Message-ID:
<ca+fdddqhuvr+1ostkq7uplrqufw2xiq8tkmh65nzjsbwcug...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It makes sense to heavily rate-limit certain UDP traffic that "should" not
be much on the DFZ and is commonly used in amplification attacks (things
like SSDP, LDAP, memcached, etc.). NTT does this on all customer ports.
Rate-limiting ALL UDP in 2023 is a very bad idea.
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:00?AM John Kristoff via Outages-discussion <
outages-discussion@outages.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2023 13:04:20 +0000
> Joseph Jackson via Outages-discussion <outages-discussion@outages.org>
> wrote:
>
> > As a voip provider whose traffic is almost all UDP and a lot of it I
> > had no idea this was something that people, much less ISPs thought.
> > I have never come across the idea that UDP traffic through routers at
> > least in my experience was being rate limited.
>
> I don't know how widespread it is, but this was precisely something I
> had done many years ago before QUIC. Slammer was what stimulated me to
> implement "edge" rate limits on UDP traffic towards external
> destinations at an edu. So for example, ingress to the network
> traffic from an end user subnet I set a max of 10 Mb/s for UDP traffic
> not destined to internal prefixes.
>
> I left the organization and came back years later. When there were
> complaints of some random real-time game performance I discovered
> someone had later put an aggregate limit of about 100 to 200 Mb/s for
> UDP at peering routers, and with the rise of the QUIC, that limit was
> now being reached by the total sum of UDP traffic from all internal
> subnets. I preceded to get rid of the hard coded UDP limits with this
> new reality. It seemed like a reasonable thing to do at the time, but
> not so much now. Like manually configured bogon filters I would assume
> there may be similar cases lurking out there.
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Outages-discussion mailing list
> Outages-discussion@outages.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages-discussion/attachments/20230518/39192b1b/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Outages-discussion mailing list
Outages-discussion@outages.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
------------------------------
End of Outages-discussion Digest, Vol 155, Issue 4
**************************************************
