QUIC traffic throttled on AT&T residential

[morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:28 AM Daniel Dent
<nanog-list at contactdaniel.net> wrote:
>
> On 2020-02-18 4:25 p.m., Jared Mauch wrote:
> > The members of the QUIC WG at IETF have not thought this was a problem as they don't observe it across the board.
> >
> > The cost for payloads with QUIC is much higher on the CPU side vs TCP as well - this is also not considered an issue either.

Jared, you mean: "Cost on the server" here not "cost on the router".
I think, and I ask because at least some of Daniel's note implies, to
my reading, that 'on the router' was your concern?

> There's plenty of room for system call/interface improvements and
> hardware acceleration in UDP stacks, both of which should help with CPU
> concerns. Now that UDP may represent a significant portion of internet
> traffic, it will be easier for the necessary engineering expense to be
> justified.
> > The explanation I got (which seems fair) from someone was that they only way to roll a new transport was to squat on some existing stuff that would make it through firewalls.
> If there's clearly a two-way flow occurring, i.e. as is the case with a

2 way flow means something on your home host or home gateway.
It means very little at internet scale... since, in many cases, you ->
server and server -> you are not sharing many of the same links /
routers / etc.

-chris