On 6 Feb 2015, at 18:24, Richard Shockey wrote: > > 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. > Sure - that's another whole ballgame! A number of ISPs blow away the DSCP bits in packets from and to the home, as I understand they use their own set of DSCPs internally. But agreements of use across boundaries aren't that clear and probably wouldn't generally be extended to end users. I guess they're also using things like MPLS, or SDN (e.g. Google B4) for traffic engineering. Piers > > > 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 [ >>> >> > >