| reply to HiVolt
Re: The Bell Disclosure! said by HiVolt:The numbers... Can I be the first one to say... WTF? Congestion? Hivolt, per the publicly filed report:
"While these numbers may seem low to the average lay person, they are significant to network traffic engineers".
k? |
|
 HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:18
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| said by Mirko five_perct :
Hivolt, per the publicly filed report:
"While these numbers may seem low to the average lay person, they are significant to network traffic engineers".
k?
I read that... I don't buy it.
k?
--
,,!,,('-'),,!,, |
|
 JGROCKYPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | Still begs the question of the ethernet side... Bell's network is being converted to it and most of their investments have gone to it.
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
| reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:said by Mirko five_perct :
Hivolt, per the publicly filed report:
"While these numbers may seem low to the average lay person, they are significant to network traffic engineers".
k?
I read that... I don't buy it. k? ditto... K! |
|
| I love the last graph that shows "cell loss" ! That's not caused by congestion, it's their DPI boxes that are dropping packets ! |
|
JGROCKYPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:The numbers... Can I be the first one to say... WTF? Congestion? Just realised... How can they put a "total" to those values... They don't relate... They all have different thresholds and mechanisms to deal with packet-loss or load. They'd need to talk on a case by case, not on a global... Some of this is on a customer to customer issue other portions are on a more aggregated level....
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | said by JGROCKY:said by HiVolt:The numbers... Can I be the first one to say... WTF? Congestion? Just realised... How can they put a "total" to those values... They don't relate... They all have different thresholds and mechanisms to deal with packet-loss or load. They'd need to talk on a case by case, not on a global... Some of this is on a customer to customer issue other portions are on a more aggregated level.... Excellent points, you should make sure these points are relayed in CAIP's reply.
--
"If bullshit was money this guy would be richer that Bill Gates." - quote by olebiker on Mirko Bibic |
|
 SpikePremium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON | reply to JGROCKY
Just what do they mean by the Backbone percentages? Are they referring to the internet backbone uplinks? If so these wouldn't even apply to wholesaler AGAS. |
|
zincPremium
join:2004-02-17
Kitchener, ON | They're referring to the links in their backbone aggregation network. (i.e. the network where the BAS links terminate and connects to ISPs) |
|
JGROCKYPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | said by zinc:They're referring to the links in their backbone aggregation network. (i.e. the network where the BAS links terminate and connects to ISPs) LOL.. if that's the case, we're paying to have those dedicated (AHSSPI).
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
|
|
zincPremium
join:2004-02-17
Kitchener, ON | reply to JGROCKY
More things to note...
As Bell stated, congestion of any link == bad customer experience.
Since throttling of 3rd party ISPs began, there's been no significant change in congestion at either the backbone or DSLAM level. So one can argue that the throttling is purely for competitive reasons as whether or not we're being throttled the amount of congested users is still the same.
I can only assume they've added capacity to the BAS and aggregation links since otherwise it doesn't make much sense that the throttle can remove congestion from the BAS and aggregation while not affecting congestion at the DSLAM level. (If the traffic's been stopped between the Backbone and BAS, then it's not there to flow from Aggregation->DSLAM and logically that should result in less congestion at the DSLAM level...) |
|
JGROCKYPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | said by zinc:I can only assume they've added capacity to the BAS and aggregation links since otherwise it doesn't make much sense that the throttle can remove congestion from the BAS and aggregation while not affecting congestion at the DSLAM level. (If the traffic's been stopped between the Backbone and BAS, then it's not there to flow from Aggregation->DSLAM and logically that should result in less congestion at the DSLAM level...) Hehehe... that's a good point... Funny they should add stuff that is before "and" after the DPI boxes in the table... BAS and DSLAMs are definitely before the DPI devices... The only thing that would be after the DPI devices of use to that table are the Backbone and Aggregation... Aggregation we've paid for to have dedicated and backbone we've paid for to have dedicated I believe.
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
| reply to zinc
said by zinc:More things to note... As Bell stated, congestion of any link == bad customer experience. Since throttling of 3rd party ISPs began, there's been no significant change in congestion at either the backbone or DSLAM level. So one can argue that the throttling is purely for competitive reasons as whether or not we're being throttled the amount of congested users is still the same. I can only assume they've added capacity to the BAS and aggregation links since otherwise it doesn't make much sense that the throttle can remove congestion from the BAS and aggregation while not affecting congestion at the DSLAM level. (If the traffic's been stopped between the Backbone and BAS, then it's not there to flow from Aggregation->DSLAM and logically that should result in less congestion at the DSLAM level...) Bell does touch on this. They are saying (basically) because there is less P2P, there is more HTTP and other traffic which is why no reduction is noted.
In reality, its all BCE BS 
DSLAMS are the most congested by their numbers, goes back to what I said a month or so ago, they added too many users then they are capable of. |
|
| reply to HiVolt
The figures in the table that HiVolt posted go from to Mar 07 (pre-throttle days) to May 08.
I don't know much about networks, so I may be missing something, but if they're saying throttling is the solution to the "problem", why does their massive throttling effort show no net impact on these figures?
Also, do they provide figures for the rest of the country or did they cherry-pick Ontario & Quebec as the worst case (suggesting the real problem is not keeping up with growth)?
Does this represent all Ontario and Quebec or just the worst areas? |
|
| reply to mr_hexen
said by mr_hexen:Bell does touch on this. They are saying (basically) because there is less P2P, there is more HTTP and other traffic which is why no reduction is noted. In reality, its all BCE BS DSLAMS are the most congested by their numbers, goes back to what I said a month or so ago, they added too many users then they are capable of. The funny thing is that if throttling only moves traffic (without reducing it), then it proves that Bell uses throttling to favorise parts of the internet while deterring others.
However, I don't see why net congestion is linked to the issue at hand. CAIP pays to get connected, it should be up to Bell to make sure the bandwitdh is available. Otherwise, they can keep overselling their network while spreading the consequences over to their competition. |
|
| reply to dabbadooo
Sorry, I guess I shouldn't take a bio-break in the middle of a post. While I was out of the room, Zinc made the same observation as I did.  |
|
 AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to JGROCKY
Just a thought.
The chart shows percentage (which is proportion). It may be difficult to tell what effect throttling has had from that data because actual volume figures are not shown and the number of customers taxing the network or actual changes in throughput is not shown.
Perhaps it is possible that Bell will make the argument that the reason why the percent numbers have not changed is because throttling abated an increase in the percentage or in other words, held it where it is before it got really bad?
--
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai |
|
JGROCKYPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | said by AkFubar:Just a thought. The chart shows percentage (which is proportion). It may be difficult to tell what effect throttling has had from that data because actual volume figures are not shown and the number of customers taxing the network or actual changes in throughput is not shown. Perhaps it is possible that Bell will make the argument that the reason why the percent numbers have not changed is because throttling abated an increase in the percentage or in other words, held it where it is before it got really bad? If I were a betting man I think if anything, they took the worst numbers/areas possible to make the arguments here....
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
| reply to JGROCKY
Just my thoughts (not a network guy myself):
The graphs on page 12 (Network Traffic Growth) and Network Capacity Growth (while on different scales) show that Bell (since 2003) has had sufficient network in place to manage even today's usage.
And unless I'm mis-interrupting this paragraph:
As described further in Bell Canada(CRTC)15May08-1 CAIP Part VII, Bell Canada has limited records of traffic make-up (i.e., P2P vs. non-P2P traffic) prior to exercising its traffic shaping using DPI devices. Therefore, the available data is insufficient to show a trend due to the short time period since DPI was introduced. They are conceding that P2P isn't the problem, they really don't know what the problem is (apart from increased growth in usage), which would be better correlated against the amount of new rich media content that has sprung up on the net, in the selected time frame, (YouTube for instance). |
|
JGROCKYPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | »www.p2pnet.net/story/16197 |
|
