On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 8:27 PM Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> A problem of QUIC with NAT is that existing NAT can not detect
> graceful shutdown of QUIC and must depends on timeout.
>
> So, port numbers may be used up before timeout.
Hmm, this is not what is happening.
I managed to (fairly easily!) rep
Daniel Sterling wrote:
I received a comment that maybe the issue is not AT&T's "core"
network, but rather to do with the NAT device in my house.
A problem of QUIC with NAT is that existing NAT can not detect
graceful shutdown of QUIC and must depends on timeout.
So, port numbers may be used u
> On 20 Feb 2020, at 11:29, Daniel Sterling wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:47 PM Daniel Sterling
> wrote:
>> random-source-port UDP traffic does not impress the AT&T network flow
>> control systems, and your DNS traffic becomes unbearably slow (or is
>
> I received a comment that mayb
I missed this in the announcement of the FCC's February meeting agenda
next week.
In the early 2000's (after 9/11), the FCC ruled that outage reports were
"presumptively confidential." Personnally, I think the real reason was a
specific carrier used the outage reporting in its sales/marketing
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:47 PM Daniel Sterling
wrote:
> random-source-port UDP traffic does not impress the AT&T network flow
> control systems, and your DNS traffic becomes unbearably slow (or is
I received a comment that maybe the issue is not AT&T's "core"
network, but rather to do with the
UPDATE: ARIN has completed coordination with the organization and whois is now
correct. Thanks!
On 2/5/20, 8:30 PM, "NANOG on behalf of John Levine" wrote:
1800vitamins.org has a web site at 12.180.219.234 which looks like
they would sell me vitamins should I or my dog need any.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:34 PM Blake Hudson 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
If by targeting DDoSes you mean rate limiting all UDP (because some UDP
is bad), then I would expect that policy to be published on a provider's
website so that folks using UDP would at least have the option to
research and know this info before signing up or agreeing to a service
commitment. S
Net Neutrality likely wouldn't have impacted this at all. AT&T isn't targeting
QUIC, they're targeting DDoSes.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Brian J. Murrell"
To: nanog@nanog.org
S
On Wed, 2020-02-19 at 13:54 -0600, Blake Hudson wrote:
>
> Isn't this exactly why Net Neutrality is a thing:
Isn't it a "dead" thing in the USofA?
> So that people (or
> companies) are free to develop new applications or enhance existing
> ones
> without running into a quagmire of different po
On 2/19/2020 2:01 PM, Daniel Sterling wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 2:55 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
I'm guessing ATT doesn't disclose this policy transparently either.
they disclose it pretty transparently to their customers in the form
of very slow youtube traffic when using v4 QUIC ;)
Yeah
On 2/19/20 2:54 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
The argument I have heard is that residential firewalls often block anything
that is*not* UDP or TCP. The question for the googlers was existential - can
it work at all?
I'm not sure that they "block" it, per se, though some probably do have
an explicit
On 2020-02-19 1:06 a.m., Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Are you saying AT&T should block UDP entirely?
No; while I don't presume to have all the answers they should at the
minimum take into account how it affects the end-user (CUSTOMER!)
experience when making decisions like this.
(No they shouldn't bloc
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 2:55 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
> I'm guessing ATT doesn't disclose this policy transparently either.
they disclose it pretty transparently to their customers in the form
of very slow youtube traffic when using v4 QUIC ;)
> On Feb 18, 2020, at 4:00 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
> I am not a fan of quic or any udp traffic. My suggestion was that Google use
> an new L4 instead of UDP, but that was too hard for the Googlers.
The argument I have heard is that residential firewalls often block anything
that is *not* UDP or T
On 2/18/2020 6:00 PM, Ca By wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:44 PM Daniel Sterling
mailto:sterling.dan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I've AT&T fiber (in RTP, NC) (AS7018) and I notice UDP QUIC traffic
from google (esp. youtube) becomes very slow after a time.
This especially occurs with i
Christopher Morrow wrote:
2 way flow means something on your home host or home gateway.
It means very little at internet scale... since, in many cases, you ->
server and server -> you are not sharing many of the same links /
routers / etc.
Subject suggests it's retail ISP to homes, which are u
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:18 AM Masataka Ohta
wrote:
>
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> > 2 way flow means something on your home host or home gateway.
> > It means very little at internet scale... since, in many cases, you ->
> > server and server -> you are not sharing many of the same links /
>
"yes, also received"
"thannks Toma!" (and nanog owner)
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 4:55 AM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
>
> Peace,
>
> nanog-ow...@nanog.org
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:51 PM Dave Bell wrote:
> > Is anyone else receiving this spam?
> Yes
>
> > Is there a better way to report this?
>
>
Peace,
nanog-ow...@nanog.org
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:51 PM Dave Bell wrote:
> Is anyone else receiving this spam?
Yes
> Is there a better way to report this?
nanog-ow...@nanog.org (CC'd) helped me in the past.
--
Töma
Is anyone else receiving this spam?
Is there a better way to report this? I couldn't see anything from a quick
look through the various list pages.
Dave
-- Forwarded message -
From: Electric Forest Festival
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 09:42
Subject: Forest HQ Has Received Your Mes
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 08:18, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> > 2 way flow means something on your home host or home gateway.
> > It means very little at internet scale... since, in many cases, you ->
> > server and server -> you are not sha
Christopher Morrow wrote:
2 way flow means something on your home host or home gateway.
It means very little at internet scale... since, in many cases, you ->
server and server -> you are not sharing many of the same links /
routers / etc.
Subject suggests it's retail ISP to homes, which are u
23 matches
Mail list logo
