Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T residential

[Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>]

> On Feb 20, 2020, at 4:42 PM, Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/20/2020 1:10 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:57:46AM -0600, Blake Hudson wrote:
> > > On 2/20/2020 10:34 AM, Ca By wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:19 AM Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net
> > > > <mailto:blake () ispn net>> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > I get it Ca, I happen to be one of those network ops folks that likes to
> > > sleep at night. However, I've never thought it was a good practice to break
> > > applications in fun ways for my customers to discover on their own and I've
> > > never sold someone a 150Mbps package that actually only delivers 10Mbps for
> > > certain applications. Regardless of the intent, ATT and Cox's policies are
> > > not transparent, open, or neutral on this topic. This leaves us to speculate
> > > on what their intentions might have been and whether their actions are an
> > > appropriate response to any concerns they might have had.
> >      I was responsible for deploying such policies in the past, going back as
> > far as the UDP/1434 filters I was forced to deploy due to persistent network
> > congestion.  Rolling these back took some time.
> >
> >      The same is true for UDP policers we ended up rolling out for NTP, chargen
> > and other activities.
> >
> >      Extending these to consumer side where the traffic often originated makes
> > sense until the devices can be secured.  You can blame the providers for deploying
> > filters, or not disconnecting consumers that have devices that can be exploited
> > or whatever other reason you believe.
> >
> >      As a network operator my goal was always to ensure customers receive
> > the traffic they expected, high rates of UDP were often not what they wanted.
> >
> >      Adusting the limits may be useful but I still think the question of
> > what rate of UDP traffic is acceptable is a practical one for the future.
> >
> >      - Jared
>
> I think that's a fair statement Jared. How about this question: Would it be reasonable for one to presume that 
> someone purchasing a 25Mbps internet connection might potentially want to send or receive 25Mbps of UDP traffic? I 
> can think of a few (not uncommon) applications where this would be the case (VPNs, security cameras using RTP, 
> teleconferencing, web browsers implementing QUIC, DNS servers, hosted PBX, etc).

I can think of many legitimate cases, but i think this is where you have internet for everyone and internet for the 
tech-savvy/business split that becomes interesting.

I’ve generally been willing to pay more for a business class service for support and improved response SLA.  The 
average user isn’t going to detect that 10% of their UDP has gone missing, nor should they be expected to.

- Jared