Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T residential

[Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net>]

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:
>
>
>     Your comments seem to differentiate IP4 vs IP6, but I don't
>     believe that
>     is relevant to the issue of an ISP throttling or breaking specific
>     applications. If you have evidence that UDP on IP4 is treated
>     differently than UDP on IP6 by your provider, without further
>     information I would suspect that this is simply an unintentional over
>     sight on their part.
>
>
>
> This is your misunderstanding. The protections are to drop ipv4 udp 
> because that is where the ddos / iot trash is , not v6.... for now
>
>
>
>     Perhaps the attention you've generated on this topic, along with the
>     adoption of additional UDP based applications like QUIC, will
>     encourage
>     ISPs to treat UDP in a more neutral manner and not simply see UDP as
>     something that is "bad".
>
>
> 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.