how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | reply to tubbynet
Re: Way to go! said by tubbynet:for once, i have to agree with tk. the issus at hand (at least with cox's hsi product) is that they are using some form of packet prioritization for voip and streaming video. many users are up in arms that they are paying for preferred or premier service and they should have *all* packets treated as such. the problem arises when someone is saturating the node (more than likely from some sort of p2p, especially bt) and that doesn't leave room for *anyones* packets because the node has been monopolized. with the popularity of products like vonage, et al, and on demand video services (netflix, hulu, youtube, etc) these services are negatively impacted in a noticeable way when there isn't enough bandwidth. otoh, bulk file transfers such as http/ftp downloads, email, etc. experience no adverse effect when delayed several passes (in fact, this is the whole concept of *packet switched networks*). Not right, what you are talking about is a software configuration problem. There is no reason why a single IP can monopolize a node unless someone didn't bother to set the pipe configuration properly (as often I've seen). BT opens a bunch of connections yes, uses a lot of bandwidth, yes, is out of control and can't be contained? Completely wrong. I have several customers that BT 24/7 and they don't affect anyone else because I know the difference between a traffic shaping setup based on priority and packet size and the same traffic shaping base that has a pipe size encompassing setting within the packet and priority settings. I think some of the ISP need to go back and read the manuals on their equipment. If you have problems with a kid running BT 24/7 at maximum saturation, then you contain his entire IP into a pipe and QoS/Shape based on that, not on how many connections your node can handle, completely wrong way to do it and exactly why what they are doing is not working.
Analogy time 
The Internet is a entrance line at a concert. You have 3 "stations" that can allow people in, one at a time. You want to treat everyone equally, but every time the rock band comes to town, "Johnny" and his 1000 friends all decide to show up at once and try to get in. Johnny's friends basically clog up the stations as they pass through, leaving a bunch of other rock fans waiting in line, getting frustrated, etc.
The concert management decides that this year they are going to manage the flow of people better so that Johnny and his friends don't clog up the entrance way frustrating people behind them.
So they setup a system where, Guys in one entrance, Girls in another, Seniors in the third. Then once again, during the concert Johnny shows up and well, it's clogged up again because Johnny's friends are of all types, Dude, Girl, Seniors, so they just end up clogging the entrance again.
So next concert, they decided that Johnny's friends should have the lowest priority. For one person of Johnny's friends, they must allow 2 "other" people through. Things start to seem a little better, but still Johnny is overwhelming the system because even though his friends must wait to pass, there are just too many to make the system effective because people are still clogged up lines and adding delays.
Finally, management gets smart. Instead of all this wacky, crazy rules to control Johnny's friend, they are just going to funnel all of his friends through one entrance, and leave the other two open for anyone else. So now Johnny has a fairly smooth flow of people coming in and because the other two entrance ways are clear, everyone can get through with either taking turns or waiting in line with Johnny's friends. If the other two entrances are clear, then they allow more of Johnny's friends through to speed things up, but if other people start to show up in line, they get priority until the other two entrances clear again and more of his friends may pass through.
A good analogy is a like a leaky screw-driver
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | | |
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by knightmb:Not right, what you are talking about is a software configuration problem. There is no reason why a single IP can monopolize a node unless someone didn't bother to set the pipe configuration properly (as often I've seen). BT opens a bunch of connections yes, uses a lot of bandwidth, yes, is out of control and can't be contained? Completely wrong. I have several customers that BT 24/7 and they don't affect anyone else because I know the difference between a traffic shaping setup based on priority and packet size and the same traffic shaping base that has a pipe size encompassing setting within the packet and priority settings. I think some of the ISP need to go back and read the manuals on their equipment. If you have problems with a kid running BT 24/7 at maximum saturation, then you contain his entire IP into a pipe and QoS/Shape based on that, not on how many connections your node can handle, completely wrong way to do it and exactly why what they are doing is not working. regardless of how the gears *should* be configured or are *able* to be configured, this is *how* they are configured. i assume that you would like to approach cox/comast/(insert name of mso here) and tell them that their gear is misconfigured? prolly won't fly...
also what kind of administrative overhead are we looking at to locate/confirm/throttle/notify/reinstate a user who has been found of throttling? comcast has a system that is protocol agnostic - but if you are bursting on your link and hit that magic utilzation cap, your entire experience suffers. if you attack those who are only utilizing certain layer-7 application headers you aren't being protocol agnostic (and therefore non-net neutral).
i see it as isps are damned if they do, damned if they don't. sure, they all could run fiber to the home, but that would be in a utopian pipe dream.
the idea has also been brought up that isps shouldn't oversubscribe like they do. this is something that i will generally agree with. heavy oversubscription (especially that done with cable systems) does promote a bad business model and i don't think that isps should be able to get away with such behavior. however, i have been very happy with the response time that cox gives to people. i was on an oversubscribed node near the local university. after working with cox over the period of a month, they split the node and speeds were back to where they should be.
q. | |
|
