Fine now how do you get the labeling/queueing across the AS boundary? I don’t know any ISP that accepts or recognizes the packet labeling of another AS. On 2/6/15, 12:28 PM, "Piers O'Hanlon" <p.ohanlon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On 6 Feb 2015, at 16:57, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> >> Jim Gettys <jg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> What effect does this algorithm have in practice? Here are some >>>examples: >>> o real time isochronous traffic (such as VOIP, skype, etc) won't build >>> a queue, so will be scheduled in preference to your bulk data. >>> o your DNS traffic will be prioritized. >>> o your TCP open handshakes will be prioritized >>> o your DHCP & RA handshakes will be prioritized >>> o your handshakes for TLS will be prioritized >>> o any simple request/response protocol with small messages. >>> o the first packet or so of a TCP transfer will be prioritized: >>>remember, >>> that packet may have the size information needed for web page layout >>>in it. >>> o There is a *positive* incentive for flows to pace their traffic (i.e. >>> to be a good network citizen, rather than always transmitting at line >>>rate). >> >>> *All without needing any explicit classification. No identification of >>> what application is running is being performed at all in this >>>algorithm.* >> >> This last part is I think the part that needs to be shouted at >>residential >> ISPs on a regular basis. I wish that the IETF and ISOC was better able >>to >> do this... in particular to ISPs which do not tend to send the right >>people >> to NANOG/RIPE/etc. >> >Explicit class-based queueing is seeing fairly substantial deployment in >some places - such as the UK - where for a few years now the default home >routers (Thomson/Technicolor TG587/582 etc) for a number of the big ISPs >(Plusnet, O2/Sky, Talk-talk and others) have shipped preconfigured with 5 >queuing classes that classify traffic and provide for differing >treatment. They also have some ALGs that work with SIP/H.323. I'm not >aware of AQM enabled on the individual queues but at least they separate >the traffic into different queues - albeit based on port number or ALG >classifiers. Better than nothing anyway. > >Also the DOCSIS3.1 standard now mandates the use an AQM - namely PIE, >though others can be implemented. I'm not sure where that is in terms of >deployment though. There's a good report on it here: >http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Active_Queue_Managemen >t_Algorithms_DOCSIS_3_0.pdf > >Piers > > >> -- >> ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh >>networks [ >> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network >>architect [ >> ] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on >>rails [ >> >