Re: What do you consider acceptable packet / session modification for a network operator?

[Pedro Prado via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Is QUIC also affected in any way?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 26 Dec 2025, at 22:31, Tim Burke via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
> I think the general stance, at least in my opinion, is that it may be acceptable for a non-fixed broadband service 
> (e.g., cell phone service), while it is not for a fixed broadband (FTTP or otherwise). I fully expect CGNAT, a basic 
> level of packet mangling in an effort to maximize performance on the cell network, etc., while I am hopping between 
> several different cell towers in an area along with thousands of other users, in an effort to improve the experience 
> of services commonly used on a cell phone… but not so much if I am sitting in my house, connected via my own network, 
> to a wired broadband connection.
>
> > On Dec 25, 2025, at 5:44 PM, andrew--- via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> >
> > So the tl;dr I'm getting from this is that
> >
> > - I don't think anyone considers this 'acceptable' for an ISP
> >
> > - Everyone knows that AT&T does it anyway
> >
> > I haven't found any documentation on how or why AT&T is actually doing this, so it's all either very old or they've 
> > scrubbed it from the internet (I know they deleted their whole forums, and it seems like some of the discussion was 
> > formerly there)
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list
> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/NFUAW4XI2Z3UGC2OHIO457D6KSNWMJU6/
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/J3ZFZOA4MU5UBIO3UBJQNGMKYDMUGWTR/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/R4WFPPZ4KXIGZUJC6QC5TCUQQIHGKYHQ/