Title is wrong; updates come over TCP that has been modified not to perform link sharing.

I have seen this with my wife's computer. Though I haven't seen the large-window phenomenon (haven't looked), what I do see is dozens of active connections opened to the same destination, which of course defeats both TCP's link sharing and standard QoS algorithms.

I work around the issue by bucketing any Akamai IP ranges I find into a very-low-priority queue, and let those TCP connections fight it out. Seems to have worked well.

For those interested, here are the Akamai IP ranges I use:

    23.0.0.0/12
    23.32.0.0/11
    23.64.0.0/14
    23.72.0.0/13
    104.64.0.0/10
    2001:428:4403::/48
    2001:428:4404::/48
    2001:428:4405::/48
    2001:428:4406::/48
    2600:1400::/24

It's also not Windows 10 specific, the post also mentions Office updates

There's a mention somewhere in the middle of the thread that someone had seen something similar with Apple's software updates, too: maybe it's a more general Akamai issue?

Even if it is isolated to the servers distributing MS's updates, I'm having trouble seeing how this could even be MS's fault-- it's the server side (owned and operated by Akamai) that's misbehaving here.

I'm not convinced either way. Windows Update is the one opening the dozens of connections (it has to if it's behind a firewall), not Akamai; Akamai's just serving the data. But Windows Update is possibly just calling out to an Akamai library that opens the dozens of connections on its behalf.

If there are also congestion-algorithm shenanigans like the forum post suggests, then Akamai is definitely at fault. But the issue I see is that of connection hogging.

* https://developer.akamai.com/stuff/Optimization/TCP_Optimiza...

* https://www.akamai.com/us/en/about/news/press/2013-press/aka...

Apparently Apple has gone away from Akamai.

Problem is that there are so many other non-Windows updates using Akamai. I blocked it on my site and immediately had complaints that the client could not access MSN.COM.

I don't block it; I just deprioritize it in my queueing policy. (I also limit it to about 2/3 of my total bandwidth, and apply RED to discourage bursts.)

Hey cool, someone forgetting _yet again_ why we use TCP.

We don't use TCP because its fast. We don't use it because its reliable (although that's really useful). We use it because _we kept breaking the internet_. Once you get above a certain threshold, the network can't keep up with you and packets start getting dropped. The problem is that backing off just a little doesn't allow the network to recover.

Instead, we need to use exponential backoff in the face of packet loss to ensure that the network as a whole can recover.

But if you're pretty much the only connection misbehaving, and everything else backs off, then you can kinda get away with not using exponential backoff. The problem is that the applications that is was "kinda okay" to do this for was VOIP and friends, where realtime delivery is really important and exponential backoff causes noticeable drops in quality.

For a great read about these kinds of issues, check out the TCP-Friendly rate control RFC: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5348

> Once you get above a certain threshold, the network can't keep up with you and packets start getting dropped. The problem is that backing off just a little doesn't allow the network to recover.

Another aspect of this problem is that the network is too hesitant to drop packets [1], so by the time you've noticed packet loss things have gotten bad enough that the drastic backoff is needed. Widespread deployment of ECN and AQM would allow for more rapid feedback before any huge backlog develops, and consequently a less extreme response to congestion signals could be used.

[1] Arista would rather their 10GbE switches add up to 100ms of queuing delay per port than drop a packet: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/2016-J...

Slightly OT, but that link is astonishing.

That anyone can think adding 100ms of latency to a 10Gbe switch, even under heavy contention is a good feature is absolutely staggering.

It's not quite 100ms. A bit less. The explanation is simple : if tcp exponential backoff fires, you will have a very bad time on any tcp connection. Site owners, obviously, don't want that.

Try this : iptables -A INPUT -m statistic --mode random --probability 0.001 -j DROP

And see how your internet works. TLDR: sometimes loading times go through the roof, some instant messages go through in <0.1s, and on occasion it takes 30+ seconds, on occasion it's a DNS query that gets dropped and a page load suddenly takes 1 minute for no identifiable reason, large downloads always "get fucked" (suddenly lose 90% of their bandwidth and take several minutes to recover). Burstly traffic doesn't work. If you start your firefox with 20+ tabs open 80% of them will never load.

You will not enjoy the experience.

So yes, people think that adding 100ms of latency is better than dropping a packet under contention.

Your numbers are ridiculous. There's a huge gulf between buffering millions of packets per switch port before a single drop, and a 1 in 1000 drop probability. You're also assuming that the drops are indiscriminate when a refusal to consider AQM and fair queuing is what led Arista to this absurdity in the first place, and you're presuming that latencies would still be astronomical in a world without massive queues.

A 10GbE network in a datacenter without bufferbloat would have RTTs orders of magnitude smaller than the 100ms queuing delay Arista considers acceptable; the effects of a congestion event would be ancient history by the time Arista's queues could drain. Even outside the datacenter, 100ms is a pretty long time for most connections in a managed-queue world. A congestion event on a device using fq_codel won't kill your DNS request or TCP handshake; it'll slow down an established flow and if you're using ECN you won't even lose a packet. It's only in a DDoS-like scenario of thousands of unresponsive connections (such as TCPs with a large initial window) beginning to transmit simultaneously that you'd see some flows getting unfairly penalized, but things would equalize within a few RTTs if the traffic was real TCP and not a true DDoS. You only see it take minutes for a download's throughput to recover if you're going over multiple satellite links or through a severely bloated queue.

Okay make it one in a million. You will still be able to tell, and still see the phenomena I'm talking about.

I was the OP in the Whirlpool post. I use Mikrotik extensively to manage connections and have done for many years. This has only become an issue recently and it has happened enough times now for me to ascertain that it is when there is a Windows 10, or Office 2016 using the new Windows update doing its thing. I have tried to limit the issue by creating limited new tcp connections per second to any given IP address and even limit maximum concurrent connections.I have seen on occasion during this issue occuring a sudden huge burst of new outbound connections. I was thinking this would cause a type of DOS attack with thousands of SYN ACKS coming back.

The real kicker is that the connections are all to servers (Akamai) on port 80, so any serious blocking breaks all web browsing. The cynic in me says the whole Windows 10 update thing has been made to operate in lockdown environments when non-well known ports are blocked. Intentional, or not, the Internet is basically broken while this happens as Windows is ubiquitous and people all over the world who have successfully used inbound rate limiting to create successful shared Internet connections are going to be getting angry support calls. I hope my post goes viral so it starts to get seen by the likes of Microsoft and Akamai engineers. The local ISP I spoke to where I initially noticed this problem pretty much fobbed me off with the old "nobody else has reported the issue."

Hi chopsywa, on the Mikrotik, did you try to use PCQ with src-address only as a classifier on the Queues? This will create a unique bucket for each host on the lan, therefore it doesn't really matter how many connections the host will open (and where), the bandwitdh will be equally distributed among all hosts on the lan as soon as a new PCQ queue is automatically created. Be sure to remove the port and dst-address option.

Daniel

Well, the good news is that this is a temporary problem. There's only so many computers out there that will get the Windows 10 upgrade and presumably that number will drop like a rock as PCs either get upgraded or the users switch to Linux ;)

Windows 10 updates going forward will use the same method.

Where did the HN submission title get UDP from? I don't see anyone in that thread suggesting that the updates were done in UDP, and all the traffic in the trace file is all TCP.

The trace is indeed a total mess, but I'm not convinced it's anything to do with TCP acceleration. There's absolutely massive levels of reordering and packet duplication happening in ways which are not consistent with TCP acceleration at all. It's much more likely that it's some kind of configuration problem elsewhere in the network.

From eyeballing the trace, almost half the payload segments there are duplicates, while a much smaller proportion are retransmits. (You can tell the difference e.g. using IP ids or by TCP timestamp TSvals / TSecrs).

We changed the title back to what the article says. The submitted title was "Windows 10 updates via UDP bypassing QoS restrictions".

Submitters: the HN guidelines ask you please not to rewrite titles except when they are misleading or linkbait. It seems like in this case the rewrite made it more misleading.

If anyone suggests a better title, we can change it again.

Apologies for that, I was trying to summarize the linked article in the title, not to mislead.

PCAP is at https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=2530363&.... It's not UDP.

I'll have to see whether this is what causes my 100 megabit downlink to behave as if it's capped at 30 megabits sometimes. The router can barely keep up as it is.

I've had a problem similar to this with my 150 megabit downlink (sigh, wish I had that much upload). The thing to remember when troubleshooting these sorts of problems is this:

    Not all iptables rules are created equal.

State tracking has significantly more overhead than other types of rules/filtering/shaping (even though state tracking is required for certain types of shaping). You may or may not have already done this but if not try this:

    iptables -t raw -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -j NOTRACK
    iptables -t raw -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j NOTRACK

(replace eth0 with your Internet interface)

State tracking on port 443 and 80 is mostly useless and it's where you're likely to see the majority of your (high bandwidth) traffic. Setting NOTRACK on those ports can make a HUGE difference while still enabling your squirrel-powered router (let me guess: It requires no active cooling? haha) to shape traffic like "teh big boys."

For years and years I was on ~8 megabit ADSL. I thought 100 megabit fibre would solve all my problems but it just moves my problems into a different class.

Thanks for that info. As soon as I can work out why the default congestion control / single connection speed on FreeBSD 10 is so bad, I'll be running that as a router.

I've actually seem the same thing recently - updates will soak up all available bandwidth, to the point where web browsing is basically impossible.

For clarification, Is it soaking up bandwith because its doing the (I forget the term) where it uses your connecion for other Windows 10 users while they update?

"Peer-to-peer transfer" is the term. You mean this hellspawn? https://www.akamai.com/us/en/solutions/products/media-delive...

I have seen my wife's Windows 10 computer upload crap from time to time and I suspected but could not confirm that it is this. How is this even possible, given that we're behind a NAT? TCP simultaneous open, I suppose?

I've not yet been able to figure out how to block these shenanigans. I really don't appreciate MS/Akamai profiting off of my (rather limited) upload bandwidth.

Ah yes thats the term, I believe (not for downloading) but another MS app Skype uses the same thing when youre talking to someone on a lower bandwith/ADSL connection. I believe it uses the same TCP mechanism of some sort which I havent looked in to.

SuperNodes, which Skype used up until Microsoft bought them out (in May 2011) and stopped doing that (in April 2012)?

http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/skype-replaces-p2p-s...

Oh I see. I figured they still used them. Skypes Ui sure has suffered sadly.

It's not just the UI that suffered. The latency and performance of Skype calls dropped significantly after they switched from P2P to Microsoft Notification Protocol 24 (aka MSN Messenger Protocol)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Notification_Protoco...

They also introduced serious security problems when they made that change... So instead of Skype messages going from one client directly to another they go through Microsoft's servers (where they are stored and intercepted by TLAs) unencrypted.

They also introduced a new "feature" whereby their systems read everything you write:

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Skype-with-care-M...

No I've disabled all of that. It's literally sucking down updates at the maximum capacity of the internet link. Previously the behaviour was to do this, but when the connection was active with other stuff it would throttle the updates back.

This is exactly what I see too. It's because Windows Update opens dozens of connections. Since TCP link-sharing is fair only on a per-connection basis, this means that Windows Update gets the lion's share of the bandwidth.

If you have a decent router (I have a Mikrotik; DD-WRT or such should work too) you can bucket all Akamai traffic into a low-priority queue. I posted an IP list elsewhere in this story.

You can use TCP LEDBAT to keep background downloads fair even with multiple connections. OS X does this for large downloads and software updates, and BitTorrent kinda uses it to not kill your net connection.

It still has some issues when multiple machines download the same update, maybe this is when you home sysadmins could start running a caching server?

It's interesting how on the forum this is totaly not about Windows 10, but more about Akamai and here all people are bashing on Windows.

Sadly my findings are that it is the new Microsoft update protocol and Akamai in combination.

I've seen on multiple win10 laptops where it just get all download bandwidth (no noticeable upload) to a point where websites won't open and skype looses connection. That's on a 5Mb line. I do see many connections opened by a single process on Microsoft IPs mentioned.

I believe it was really only update related but I saw it happen when actually no updates were available. I just ended up limiting the corresponding process bandwidth whenever it gets annoying.

One into the other, I'm mainly just very surprised this kind of thing can happen. Except that I'm fairly happy with win10 though as opposed to the usual MS bashing we can hear. One thing into

A key part:

"It was the same range of source addresses and this was with Windows server and then Office updates. What seems to be happening is that instead of the sending server reducing its window size when packets are dropped, it just keeps re-sending large windows, which are obviously being dropped at my end. The queue algorithm has no idea of this and it will be letting packets through at a rate it thinks is correct, so the flow continues even though much of the traffic is dropped. However as the traffic keeps coming, the link is totally saturated."

Translation: someone broke TCP flow control.

Windows has a feature to perform low priority downloads of updates called Background Intelligent Transfer Service: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc776905(v=ws.10...

There's also the Windows Update Delivery Optimization P2P feature: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/windows-update...

The problem with BITS is that it assumes that the computer it's on is the only computer on the network. (In a switched network, how could it know otherwise?) So it will start bulk downloads while other users are trying to use the network interactively, with predictable consequences.

I basically just configure my network as if everything connected to it – both clients and the ISP – are bad actors trying to DoS me (albeit, a DoS regulated by TCP Vegas). Between my ISP's bufferbloat and these shenanigans from MS/Akamai, it's not a bad approximation.

IIRC BITS used Vegas-like (or these days we'd say uTP-like) heuristics to detect cross traffic and back off, but who knows what the latest version is doing.

This isn't a new problem for us VOIP'ers. Bad actors have been breaking TCP for a while. We solved by putting a great big server/router up at a datacenter with a fat link. Any connection that misbehaves by ignoring TCP drops or flooding with UDP for more than a few seconds gets rerouted through that server. (New connections are made through this route.) It has outbound rate limiting down the pipe to the local networks.

Keeps the local networks happy and fast. Isn't as expensive as routing everything through a datacenter because only misbehaving IP's get rerouted. Had the added side benefit that I could "protect" offices from the "involuntary" win10 upgrade.

New phenomenon? I think it was first VOIP apps I ever used with Windows 3.11 which already had some protocol level tricks to work around TCP limitations. Like using ICMP and or UDP traffic. Hardly news. I've been thinking this since reading about TCP for the very first time. I've even published a concept of "Bandwidth Hog", which is transfer protocol designed to optimize your transport. By stealing others bandwidth, aka not sharing it fairly. http://www.sami-lehtinen.net/blog/bandwidth-hog-quick-concep...

It's "new" in that it's been deployed by the most widespread desktop OS, so networks without compromised machines or bad actors have to deal with it now.

Ah, this looks like using multiple TCP streams to counter latency based throughput. Its not really new, its used in VFX to shuttle large amounts of data about.

Is it not OK to criticize Microsoft on HN? This title was changed to remove any mention of Windows. Just curious.

I think it's that they (HN mods) like to use the original title.

Especially when the submitted title contains relevant context for the article. Can't be having that.

The submitted title was just plain wrong.

After looking at what the original title was, I agree. In this case it needed to be changed but just dropping the part about UDP would have been fine. In most cases though it honestly seems like when HN titles are changed it's changed for the worst. It looks like I'm not the only one who feels that way either.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4102013

Go ahead and fight it in those cases, but this is not at all good example.

The title was incorrect before (suggested UDP was used; it's not). dang just reverted to the article's actual title.

Really, pushing Windows 10 has now become so urgent we can't let TCP slow us down?!