4 ms·

None of this would be an issue if ISPs actually dropped UDP packets. They should run at a lower QoS by design. After all, the UDP spec explicitly calls out that

by mannyv 3y ago

None of this would be an issue if ISPs actually dropped UDP packets. They should run at a lower QoS by design. After all, the UDP spec explicitly calls out that it's unreliable. Yet IRL nobody drops them, ever, except during mitigation. Just drop them already. It's been decades.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> None of this would be an issue if ISPs actually dropped UDP packets. They should run at a lower QoS by design. After all, the UDP spec explicitly calls out that it's unreliable. Yet IRL nobody drops them, ever, except during mitigation. There's a difference between unreliable best-effort and "just throw out packets indiscriminatly". > Just drop them already. It's been decades. ... Decades since what? UDP is still very much in use
chungy 3y ago
The "U" doesn't stand for Unreliable. It's basically the simplest possible packetization that doesn't offer much of anything that the underlying IPv4/IPv6 layer doesn't, besides filtering out packets based on port numbers. It's very commonly used for games and video services, where applications can recover from the odd dropped or out-of-order packet. As the sibling comment mentions, what does "It's been decades?" supposed to imply? It's also been decades since TCP was invented, are you calling for its discontinuation too?
3c6bYDXLMj 3y ago
If you could put yourself in the shoes any position/s in any organisation/s necessary to implement your grand vision, what would you do? How would you do it? This just sounds like the sort of absurd proposition that can only be made by people that don’t have a seat at the table.
bouncycastle 3y ago
UDP is used by Wireguard, for example. Quote from Wikipedia: "WireGuard uses only UDP, due to the potential disadvantages of TCP-over-TCP. Tunneling TCP over a TCP-based connection is known as "TCP-over-TCP", and doing so can induce a dramatic loss in transmission performance (a problem known as "TCP meltdown").
- snowstormsun 3y ago
  Wireguard also has a mechanism where it may choose (under high load) to respond with a cookie, which is the MAC of the requesting IP address. The sender then needs to resend his request with that cookie. https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard.pdf https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard.pdf (5.3)
  - bouncycastle 3y ago
    Nice detail, thanks
jerbear4328 3y ago
That is not a good idea at all. For example: the new HTTP/3 over QUIC runs on top of UDP. There's a good chance most modern websites you use regularly use UDP, and most games and other real-time programs rely solely on UDP. UDP is unreliable because the raw transport mechanisms on the internet are unreliable. TCP helps control the transport of these packets, but if you need more speed or want to implement it in a better way, then UDP is necessary.
Dylan16807 3y ago
Individual UDP packets are, and are supposed to be, exactly as unreliable as individual TCP packets. Both of them should be dropped when buffers get over a small size, but otherwise should not be dropped. Do you want TCP packets to just be dropped already, it's been decades...?
knorker 3y ago
UDP is needed exactly for real time data, like voice calls and games. TCP cannot do it. It's in order by design, which makes it useless for timely data. If anything UDP should have higher QoS.
tsimionescu 3y ago
Amplification attacks would still be a problem even if ISPs were to de-prioritize UDP traffic (for which there is exactly 0 reason, but that's another matter). They would still impact anyone talking over UDP, effectively saturating the "UDP link" even if they leave TCP unaffected. And there are some pretty important protocols people actually care about that work over UDP - DNS and RTP în particular. Finally, in an ideal internet, ISPs would not have actually cared whether they are transporting UDP or TCP or SCTP or whatever else. The fact that it's basically impossible to send an IP packet that is not one of the blessed protocols over the Internet is already a major corruption of the stack model. Further gimping UDP to make TCP the only viable option would be crazy.

by mannyv 3y ago

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

> None of this would be an issue if ISPs actually dropped UDP packets. They should run at a lower QoS by design. After all, the UDP spec explicitly calls out that it's unreliable. Yet IRL nobody drops them, ever, except during mitigation. There's a difference between unreliable best-effort and "just throw out packets indiscriminatly". > Just drop them already. It's been decades. ... Decades since what? UDP is still very much in use

chungy 3y ago

The "U" doesn't stand for Unreliable. It's basically the simplest possible packetization that doesn't offer much of anything that the underlying IPv4/IPv6 layer doesn't, besides filtering out packets based on port numbers. It's very commonly used for games and video services, where applications can recover from the odd dropped or out-of-order packet. As the sibling comment mentions, what does "It's been decades?" supposed to imply? It's also been decades since TCP was invented, are you calling for its discontinuation too?

3c6bYDXLMj 3y ago

If you could put yourself in the shoes any position/s in any organisation/s necessary to implement your grand vision, what would you do? How would you do it? This just sounds like the sort of absurd proposition that can only be made by people that don’t have a seat at the table.

bouncycastle 3y ago

UDP is used by Wireguard, for example. Quote from Wikipedia: "WireGuard uses only UDP, due to the potential disadvantages of TCP-over-TCP. Tunneling TCP over a TCP-based connection is known as "TCP-over-TCP", and doing so can induce a dramatic loss in transmission performance (a problem known as "TCP meltdown").

snowstormsun 3y ago
Wireguard also has a mechanism where it may choose (under high load) to respond with a cookie, which is the MAC of the requesting IP address. The sender then needs to resend his request with that cookie. https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard.pdf https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard.pdf (5.3)
- bouncycastle 3y ago
  Nice detail, thanks

jerbear4328 3y ago

That is not a good idea at all. For example: the new HTTP/3 over QUIC runs on top of UDP. There's a good chance most modern websites you use regularly use UDP, and most games and other real-time programs rely solely on UDP. UDP is unreliable because the raw transport mechanisms on the internet are unreliable. TCP helps control the transport of these packets, but if you need more speed or want to implement it in a better way, then UDP is necessary.

Dylan16807 3y ago

Individual UDP packets are, and are supposed to be, exactly as unreliable as individual TCP packets. Both of them should be dropped when buffers get over a small size, but otherwise should not be dropped. Do you want TCP packets to just be dropped already, it's been decades...?

knorker 3y ago

UDP is needed exactly for real time data, like voice calls and games. TCP cannot do it. It's in order by design, which makes it useless for timely data. If anything UDP should have higher QoS.

tsimionescu 3y ago

Amplification attacks would still be a problem even if ISPs were to de-prioritize UDP traffic (for which there is exactly 0 reason, but that's another matter). They would still impact anyone talking over UDP, effectively saturating the "UDP link" even if they leave TCP unaffected. And there are some pretty important protocols people actually care about that work over UDP - DNS and RTP în particular. Finally, in an ideal internet, ISPs would not have actually cared whether they are transporting UDP or TCP or SCTP or whatever else. The fact that it's basically impossible to send an IP packet that is not one of the blessed protocols over the Internet is already a major corruption of the stack model. Further gimping UDP to make TCP the only viable option would be crazy.