<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/18/2020 6:00 PM, Ca By wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD6AjGTGC548zbcMsq7xzZG61-YSThXROcySwoqOPVs_jPHmSQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:44 PM Daniel Sterling <<a
href="mailto:sterling.daniel@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">sterling.daniel@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I've
AT&T fiber (in RTP, NC) (AS7018) and I notice UDP QUIC
traffic<br>
from google (esp. youtube) becomes very slow after a time.<br>
<br>
This especially occurs with ipv4 connections. I'm not the
only one to<br>
notice; a web search for e.g. "Extremely Poor Youtube TV
Performance"<br>
notes the issue.<br>
<br>
I assume traffic is being throttled on AT&T's side. And
it's not done<br>
with their CPE; I'm bypassing their NAT box and connecting
my laptop<br>
directly to the ONT.<br>
<br>
A quick google search shows people are aware that QUIC can
look like<br>
DoS traffic -- but how widely known is this problem? It may
become<br>
worse if / when sites transition to HTTP/3<br>
<br>
For now I reject UDP 443 on the client firewall.
Applications using<br>
QUIC client libraries then fallback to TCP. This works well
and I have<br>
no issues with latency or throughput when using TCP.<br>
<br>
May I naively ask if Google staff are working with AT&T
to address this?</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Sounds like you found the answer, ATT just
needs to scale up your rejection approach that is proven to
work well. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Yes, most ddos traffic is ipv4 udp and yes
Google was made aware that they would be mixing with bad
company in the pool of ipv4 udp traffic ... but they have
reasons. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So here we are.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Just say no to udp.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Isn't this exactly why Net Neutrality is a thing: So that people (or
companies) are free to develop new applications or enhance existing
ones without running into a quagmire of different policies
implemented by any number of different networks between the
application developer and the application's users?<br>
<br>
For what it's worth, Cox cable also treats UDP traffic differently -
impacting the performance of VPNs using UDP. Cox provides a list of
blocked ports on their website, but makes no mention that they
throttle or otherwise treat UDP as a special case. I'm guessing ATT
doesn't disclose this policy transparently either.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>