> On Feb 21, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Dan Wing <danw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There are choices, such as making connection initiation, connection > acceptance, and connection termination parsable by network elements on the > path so state can be established, maintained, and cleared, DoS can be > identified, and so on. The decision was to hide all that from network > elements. I think those design choices lead directly to these known cases where a UDP policer is encountered. I can drive along the road and not crash into the trees, but when I make a choice to deploy something without the proper safety equipment and it crashes, blaming the road seems like a poor response. I can already hear the QUIC WG types blaming the network in abstentia, because well, why would an operator want to keep their network functioning? :-) - Jared
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Ca By
- RE: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Keith Medcalf
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Dave Bell
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Aled Morris via NANOG
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Ca By
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Dave Bell
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Blake Hudson
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Ca By
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Matthew Kaufman
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Dan Wing
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Jared Mauch
- Re: [External] Re: QUIC traffic throttl... Hunter Fuller
- Re: [External] Re: QUIC traffic throttl... Ca By
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Łukasz Bromirski
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Matthew Petach
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Owen DeLong
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Paul Timmins
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Tom Hill
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Łukasz Bromirski
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T ... Masataka Ohta
- Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T residential Masataka Ohta