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 -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.