Daryl Lamonica
@teksavvy.com
| reply to DSL_Ricer
Re: The Bell Disclosure!
said by DSL_Ricer  :Now can someone please explain to me exactly from where to where in the network diagram their DSLAM category is, and why they can't selectively target traffic on congested links? I'm not an expert in Bell's network, so if there are any mistakes in this explanation they are mine:
In simplistic terms, a TS customer's data will traverse the following path:
a) the copper from your home to the CO (DSLAM) is speed restricted by the card in the DSLAM with provisions your service, and by the wire distance from your house to the CO. Currently Bell's DSLAM cards max out at about 7Mpbs as short distances from the CO. Typical data rates are 3-6Mbps downstream, depending on the service you purchased and the distance from the CO to your home.
2) From the DSLAM the signal goes to a concentrator (I'm using this terminology because the type of equipment used may vary) which then puts your traffic and that of other people onto a GigE type circuit (typically).
3) From there the data leaves the CO and heads to a NAP (like 151 Front St. W. in Toronto).
4) At the NAP, the data is passed over from Bell to TS's own co-located network and then onto the connections TS purchases from other providers.
I'm not 100% certain where Bell's Ellacoya boxes are physically located, but logically they could be located at either a step 2a or step 3a, and possibly even both locations to deal with upstream/downstream traffic before they hit the GigE pipes in either direction. |
|
Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| reply to R0CKY
Interesting statement at »www.internetevolution.com/docume···umber=13
"Both the Arbor/Ellacoya E30 and Ipoque PRX-5G devices showed excellent performance and very good P2P detection and regulation capabilities:
* The presence of each of the filter devices affected the network performance not at all, or only to a small extent. Packet loss was not observed for bidirectional rates of up to 950 Mbit/s. ....."
I wonder if the packet loss Bell has shown is a direct result of the introduction of the Ellacoya boxes. |
|
Kareeser
hm?
Premium
join:2006-07-18
Hamilton, ON | I wouldn't be surprised. The more stops, the greater the risk... |
|
DJ MASACRE
@accelio.com
| reply to R0CKY
umm .. so now what ..
CRTC will just take this "disclosure" and go .. mmhmm .. interesting ... this looks like something .. ok, so we got some proof, now we'll make our decision .
how can the CRTC actually see this as valid ?
Whats the next move ?
is anyone going to say anything directly to CRTC about this? ... are we just going to let this pass ?
if we thought their data was going to be weak, they sure didn't surprise us again, with this ..
.......... sooo ...........
i dont know what we are doing now, just waiting for September ?
Surely the public and CAIP has provided tons more proof that this is affected the end user, and has terrible effects on us all ... rather than BELL showing a nice table .
this just makes me sick .. a professional business playing games... with us, and treating us as an average lay person . please bibic. |
|
Capharnaum
join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC
| reply to DSL_Ricer
said by DSL_Ricer :If you were trying to call 911 on a voip phone during that 0.37% of the time, would you be OK with the congestion? Congestion doesn't mean your VOIP 911 call wouldn't go through. It means that congested dslams get to "critical" levels, but it doesn't mean that it is overloaded and wouldn't process your call. Also, it is unclear whether congestion would just slow down the links or whether it would lengthen response time and by how much.
There isn't any data that lets us think the "congestion" would affect anyone for any particular length of time. |
|
cisco morons
@videotron.ca
| reply to R0CKY
»www.p2pnet.net/story/16219#comment-549968
“While the CRTC ordered some of those figures be made public, there is still too much left secret for observers to be able to come to any definitive conclusions about the level of congestion on Bell’s network, said Tom Copeland, president of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers. The figures still do not show where there is possible congestion or at what times of day.”
Interested parties, other than Bell and the association of internet providers, now have until July 3 to file submissions on the issue with the CRTC, says the story, adding:
“So far, the internet providers association has attracted support from a broad range of parties, with submissions made by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of Voice Over IP Providers, Quebec’s l’Union des consommateurs, Skype Communications, the University of Western Ontario, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, internet content companies TCPub Media and Kaboose Inc., and service providers Wireless Nomad and Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc.
“Bell, on the other hand, has found support in the form of a filing by network equipment maker Cisco Systems Inc.”
=======
My comments:
You know what I find interesting. Cisco is all for the throttle, yet at the same time is profiting from all of you who buy their linksys G or GL routers to by-pass the throttle.
Does anyone else see Cisco profiting and playing both sides? |
|
cisco filing
@videotron.ca
| said by cisco morons :
“Bell, on the other hand, has found support in the form of a filing by network equipment maker Cisco Systems Inc.”
Can someone find the link to the Cisco Systems filing in support for bell? I don't see it.
TY! |
|
found it
@videotron.ca | N/M... found it. Eyeballs don't work till the 3rd cup of coffee.
»www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/20···0282.PDF |
|
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to cisco morons
said by cisco morons :
Does anyone else see Cisco profiting and playing both sides?
Of course they are, they now have a huge hold on consumer and businesses as well as ISPs so they have a huge advantage in that they serve all those markets with a strong brand. It's a smart business plan, unfortunately I don't think it's right that they are playing in this field. The CRTC should not even be accepting comments by these equipment manufacturers.
--
"If bullshit was money this guy would be richer that Bill Gates." - quote by olebiker on Mirko Bibic |
|
two timers
@videotron.ca
| I will make it part of my submission to the CRTC on how they are playing both ends.
Also I made a mistake in the URL above, the Cisco filing is here:
»www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/···5153.htm |
|
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| Thanks for the link. Interesting, Skype has submitted comments as well!
--
"If bullshit was money this guy would be richer that Bill Gates." - quote by olebiker on Mirko Bibic |
|
back daters
@videotron.ca
| Yeah there are a couple of submissions there i never noticed till i read that p2pnet.net article.
The CRTC seems to put stuff up randomly a couple of weeks after they receive a filing, then back dates the web site to when they were in receipt of it.
So a few of these I never even saw. |
|
Radar73
join:2008-01-20
Ajax, ON
| reply to two timers
I liked this comment among others in their filing:
How is it that Bell has constructed a network so lacking in capacity that a mere 5% of the subscribers, who are simply using their Internet service as advertised, can congest the network so seriously that it requires traffic shaping?
I'm sure the CRTC will overlook this simple argument when they decide Bell can continue the throttle (I know I'm a pessimist). |
|
Kareeser
hm?
Premium
join:2006-07-18
Hamilton, ON
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
2 edits | reply to cisco morons
said by cisco morons :
You know what I find interesting. Cisco is all for the throttle, yet at the same time is profiting from all of you who buy their linksys G or GL routers to by-pass the throttle.
Does anyone else see Cisco profiting and playing both sides?
No, I don't see that at all.
The G and GL routers are loaded with traditional Linksys firmware which by default do not bypass the throttling.
The replacement of the firmware voids the warranty (probably) and is of a THIRD-PARTY, which, need I remind you, was free.
Furthermore, Cisco was making these routers long before the throttling began.
Thirdly, the amount of people using Tomato 1.19-mp (and its unstable variants) is probably only in the tens, maybe hundreds. That amounts to much too little in terms of profit (minus shipping from warehouses, production costs, and other assorted overhead) to even keep the router in production. Clearly, there is another reason (see below), not to mention that you don't even need a WRT54GL to bypass the throttle, since you can achieve the same thing natively with Windows XP (I will admit, of course, that it's much easier to just use the WRT54GL).
Lastly, Cisco keeps these routers in production not because they want the throttle bypass to continue, but because there is such a demand for them by enthusiasts who like to install third-party firmwares.
So, I say, Cisco may have elements that you can use to accuse them of serving both sides of the "war" effort, but I wouldn't go as far as to accuse them of purposely doing so. |
|
Ted Rogers
@teksavvy.com | reply to cisco morons
said by cisco morons :
Cisco is all for the throttle, yet at the same time is profiting from all of you who buy their linksys G or GL routers to by-pass the throttle. Specifically which model numbers? |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC | Considering that WE made the firmware for Linksys routers that evade throttling, I hardly think that Linksys is trying intentionally to profit from this. They just made a very flexible piece of consumer hardware, and we took advantage of that. |
|
Candoo3
join:2005-01-24
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to cisco morons
said by cisco morons :
My comments:
You know what I find interesting. Cisco is all for the throttle, yet at the same time is profiting from all of you who buy their linksys G or GL routers to by-pass the throttle.
Wow, maybe Bell can get Ellcoya to make a submission in their favour also.
What all of these dummies have done, is to put on their blinders, and are trying to pull the blinders over the public's eyes. Over and over you read and hear the words "market forces" and "competition". They just don't get it, or don't want to get it. They need to get their head outa their ass. CS aside, they have brought the indies DOWN to the same playing field as themselves, when it comes to the actual service. That is NOT competition, and where the hell do the "market forces" have meaning, when everyone is being forced to play the game by Bell's rules. Everyone is being FORCED to be the same. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
4 edits | reply to R0CKY
The DSLAM line of the chart in Document 1 and the graph on Page 13 in Document 2 shows the problem: the network Capacity is not being grown according to demands, and throttling hasn't fixed that at all.
Consumer demand for bandwidth has been growing at a rate of 37% to 40% a year, according to Cisco. This means that every 25 months or so, both the growth of consumer demand and the capacity to meet it should double. The chart on page 12 reflects this pretty well -- Bell's consumers are typical.
But then the chart on page 13 shows that DSLAM capacity improvements took about 5 years (instead of 2.1) to double! That, my friends, is called "falling behind."
Note the DSLAM line in the chart back in Document 1 -- throttling hasn't helped the DSLAM much at all. That's because, again, they're not upgrading fast enough. They're behind.
Bell states that they're spending millions on upgrades, but they're not increasing capacity fast enough. Upgrading the network too slowly and not upgrading the network at all has the same type of effect -- just to a worse degree.
Back to document 1, look at the Backbone line. Now look at the Backbone lines on Page 12 and 13. That's what good network management should look like.
My conclusions are
We're not here to confirm that decreasing P2P traffic helps cure congestion -- decreasing ANY traffic does, not just P2P. The question under test isn't whether throttling works. The question was whether Bell had to resort to it because of unusually high growth that make capacity increases inappropriate.
There is no evidence in these documents to support any unusually high growth, but Bell has provided evidence of capacity upgrades that are not responding to their own growth patterns that match the historical and Internet-wide trends.
- that the Internet has not recently had any explosion of bandwidth demand, so the methods of keeping up now should be the same as keeping up before.
- the data does not explain Bell's "surprise" action on its customers and their end users
NOTES --
Don't blame P2P: BitTorrent traffic avoids congested links. In BitTorrent networks, transfers drop congested links in favor of less-congested ones. But in order to find out if a link is congested, it tries it for 30 seconds. If there is congestion, there will be a packet drop and the BitTorrent client will stop sending on that peer connection (it has plenty of others idle connections to choose from, and will only actively send to 3-4 at any one time). So extended congestion does not mean that P2P is congesting a link for any length of time, in fact it probably means that unicast client-server transfers (which do not wander off looking for less-congested paths when there is congestion) are the transfers that turn mere moments of congestion to turn into minutes of congestion.
Disregard the "Total" line of that chart in the first document. The Total line is meaningless gibberish. The user is going to experience congestion along the way, like this:
March 2007
User (0% dropped) = 100% chance of hitting uncongested path
Congestion at DSLAM (5.6%) = 94.4% chance of hitting uncongested path
Congestion at Aggregation (5.3%) = 89.4% chance of hitting uncongested path
Congestion at BAS (3.1%) = 86.6% chance of hitting uncongested path
Congestion at Backbone (3.0%) = 81.9% chance of hitting uncongested path
Chance of hitting a congested link in this network = 100% - 81.9% = 18.1%
So the Total line should look like this:
Total 18.14% 13.50% 9.11% 7.70% 7.71% 8.83% 10.48% 11.89% 12.17% 8.41% 10.50% 12.89% 10.42% 7.86% 6.43%
Note that hitting a congested link doesn't mean that the packet will be dropped or delayed. It just means that some percentage of packets arriving there will be. It depends on how congested the link is, and that data is not provided.
Note: I've never worked at an ISP. Please check my work.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
IgniteNotLogged
@co.uk | Not quite, you need to take each number and multiply it by the % figure of uncongested network for the next step then divide it by 100. The congestion figure will be multiplicative not additive.
Ta. |
|
oh LOOK
@videotron.ca
| reply to R0CKY
I'm not sure if this url was shown here, so here goes:
»www.zeropaid.com/news/9592/Bell+···Cases%21
It's interesting to note that Bell chose one of the most populated areas in Canada to try and prove that they are congested. what's more interesting is how Bell tries to sell these statistics as proof that they need to throttle everyone who uses their networks: |
|
