<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/20/2020 10:34 AM, Ca By wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD6AjGROHs8w=6oCLVdNe9-BbCBEG6ZrtVCtBxCT8vVsa3kdsQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at
10:19 AM Blake Hudson <<a href="mailto:blake@ispn.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">blake@ispn.net</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Your comments seem to differentiate IP4 vs IP6, but I don't
believe that <br>
is relevant to the issue of an ISP throttling or breaking
specific <br>
applications. If you have evidence that UDP on IP4 is
treated <br>
differently than UDP on IP6 by your provider, without
further <br>
information I would suspect that this is simply an
unintentional over <br>
sight on their part.</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">This is your misunderstanding. The protections
are to drop ipv4 udp because that is where the ddos / iot
trash is , not v6.... for now</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
Perhaps the attention you've generated on this topic, along
with the <br>
adoption of additional UDP based applications like QUIC,
will encourage <br>
ISPs to treat UDP in a more neutral manner and not simply
see UDP as <br>
something that is "bad".<br>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
</body>
</html>