4 ms·
Sounds like a violation of net neutrality. Extremely convenient excuse to throttle the new P2P protocols that are emerging and threatening to run over the top o
by jsprogrammer 11y ago
Sounds like a violation of net neutrality. Extremely convenient excuse to throttle the new P2P protocols that are emerging and threatening to run over the top of the networks.
What is a "baseline" UDP load? And why not just filter on the attacking DNS requests? At worst you'd have to spoof responses and act as a caching proxy.
- takeda 11y agoThe UDP protocol unlike TCP does not have congestion control. This means that if both protocols share the write the TCP will always back off and let UDP use as much bandwidth as it wants. Because router speed is not unlimited effectively UDP will reduce TCP's performance. Also if UDP traffic would grow, there is the danger of congestion collapse, which means that one day the Internet would simply became so slow it would be unusable. This already happened in second half of 80s and was solved by adding congestion control and avoidance to TCP. Why not add it to UDP? You might say. There were attempts, but are unsuccessful due to connection less nature of UDP. This move is totally understandable and provably only thing we can effectively do today. I also don't think net neutrality can be applied here, since there is no discrimination of specific communication between two parties. All UDP traffic is limited it doesn't matter who is using it.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoHas T-Mobile provided any evidence that their network is actually congested? They made the claim in this draft that it is/was, but then failed to show or link to anything that would corroborate the claim. At the same time, T-Mobile benefits by blocking traffic that may compete with T-Mobile's other offerings (p2p voice/video connections).