On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:19 AM Blake Hudson <bl...@ispn.net> wrote:
> > > On 2/19/2020 3:21 PM, Daniel Sterling wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:34 PM Blake Hudson <bl...@ispn.net> wrote: > >> Yeah, that was a nice surprise to find that my tethered LTE connection > >> was out performing my wired cable modem service. Of course, I had > >> already signed up for a year of service and there were early termination > >> fees for cancelling... that and there are no other wireline providers > >> available at my home (not even ATT). > > So we're left with some questions: > > > > 1. It's clear I'm not the only one experiencing this issue. How > > widespread is this problem, really? Has it gotten rather worse over > > the past ~year? > > > > 2. Are customers of larger ISPs much more impacted than customers of > > smaller ones that (assumedly) don't have to deprioritize UDP so much? > > 2a. If users *are* impacted, as Blake notes, they may not be able to > > switch ISPs to improve their lot.. will customers complain to their > > ISP or to Google? > > > > 3. How much worse is the problem when using v4 UDP QUIC vs v6? If QUIC > > only works on v6 (and if it in fact continues to actively BREAK > > v4-only users), then is this v6's "killer app" that will drive > > adoption? > > 3a. Or will this issue hinder HTTP/3 deployment (or cause mass > > blocking of UDP on clients)? > > > > 4. Will ISPs be willing to give UDP traffic higher priority to improve > > user experience? Will that only happen once HTTP/3 is widely deployed? > > > > 5. We can only assume Google is aware of this issue; will Google work > > to improve QUIC fallback to TCP, or will they work with ISPs to get > > QUIC (esp v4 QUIC) prioritized, or will they do nothing, or will they > > actively encourage QUIC to break v4 at the expensive of current user > > experience? > > 5a. Will another company that wants HTTP/3 to succeed take the mantle > > and work with ISPs to improve the situation? I'm reminded of when > > Microsoft worked with ISPs to ensure xbox UDP traffic would transit > > properly > > > > -- Dan > Dan, my experience with Cox is that their standard cable internet > package (advertised as 150Mbps) rate limits UDP to ~10Mbps. This appears > to be controlled via the cable modem config file which is enforced by > both the cable modem and the CMTS. I do not know if this is per flow or > per circuit or affects IP4 differently than IP6. I suspect that someone > at Cox decided that the only applications using UDP were VoIP and DNS > and that those applications never needed more than 1Mbps so anything > else must be "bad" and should be stopped. Whether "bad" means harmful to > network operation, harmful to support costs, or harmful to profits, I do > not know. > > Your comments seem to differentiate IP4 vs IP6, but I don't believe that > is relevant to the issue of an ISP throttling or breaking specific > applications. If you have evidence that UDP on IP4 is treated > differently than UDP on IP6 by your provider, without further > information I would suspect that this is simply an unintentional over > sight on their part. This is your misunderstanding. The protections are to drop ipv4 udp because that is where the ddos / iot trash is , not v6.... for now > > > Perhaps the attention you've generated on this topic, along with the > adoption of additional UDP based applications like QUIC, will encourage > ISPs to treat UDP in a more neutral manner and not simply see UDP as > something that is "bad". > Dropping udp is not from a “best practice” doc from a vendor, it is deployed by network ops folks that are trying to sleep at night. > --Blake >
