dslreports logo
site
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search Topic:
uniqs
5211
share rss forum feed


MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

1 edit

[OOL] is punishing encrypted YouTube straems at prime time?

Over the last couple of weeks I noticed that while using YouTube in https mode it is virtually unwatchable at anything over 480p from ~8pm until ~11pm.
Videos download at very slow ~2.5mbit/sec.
If I switch back to regular http they download just fine.
As a test I measured how fast this video will download at 1080p https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIBx0PoSqSg directly connected and when connected to my work VPN which terminates in Manhattan.
The picture above speaks for itself. :(
Anybody else noticed this?

--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]

goldensam

join:1999-08-20
Oceanside, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online

I have boost and for the most part I get what I pay for.

You Tube is useless as it currently is. Best I can hope for is 360p unless I want to revisit Real Player from 1999. My daughter is constantly complaining about buffering of her ipad -(she says youtube is broken!)

OOL app works perfectly, Netflix also.



mbernste
Boosted
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-30
Piscataway, NJ

1 recommendation

reply to MxxCon

said by MxxCon:

Over the last couple of weeks I noticed that while using YouTube in https mode it is virtually unwatchable

Why would you even want to view in https mode? It's not like you're at a banking site and since it is a Google owned property, they know what you're watching and selling off the demographic data to the highest bidder anyway. You don't really need that extra overhead for YouTube.


MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

1 recommendation

It's irrelevant "why" I want https. It is my decision.
Obviously you don't understand all the implications of HTTPS so perhaps you shouldn't chime in.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]


TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Optimum Online

While anything is possible, I think it is less likely that OOL is doing anything to the traffic and more likely that you are using different servers for the VPN and OOL connection. Encryption is very CPU intensive and if the youtube server that you use via OOL is at all busy the first thing that will suffer is encrypted video.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore.


cablewizzard

join:2009-06-14
Hicksville, NY
kudos:1

said by TheWiseGuy:

While anything is possible, I think it is less likely that OOL is doing anything to the traffic and more likely that you are using different servers for the VPN and OOL connection. Encryption is very CPU intensive and if the youtube server that you use via OOL is at all busy the first thing that will suffer is encrypted video.

+1

What were the Google CDN IPs you were actually receiving the streams from?

Google's CDN management for YT has sucked for a good 2 years now, and no, that has nothing to do with OOL, but everything to do with their ridiculous month-to-month growth.


mbernste
Boosted
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-30
Piscataway, NJ
reply to MxxCon

said by MxxCon:

It's irrelevant "why" I want https. It is my decision.
Obviously you don't understand all the implications of HTTPS so perhaps you shouldn't chime in.

Sure I do. You must be one paranoid dude if you're worried about traffic monitoring and payload injections on YouTube. I've been to Defcon 17 and 19 and heard my fair share of talks about that.


MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY
reply to cablewizzard

said by cablewizzard:

said by TheWiseGuy:

While anything is possible, I think it is less likely that OOL is doing anything to the traffic and more likely that you are using different servers for the VPN and OOL connection. Encryption is very CPU intensive and if the youtube server that you use via OOL is at all busy the first thing that will suffer is encrypted video.

+1

What were the Google CDN IPs you were actually receiving the streams from?

Google's CDN management for YT has sucked for a good 2 years now, and no, that has nothing to do with OOL, but everything to do with their ridiculous month-to-month growth.

Youtube doesn't have multiple POPs in NYC. So what are the chances that 100% of the time my OOL requests get to overloaded servers and 100% of the time my VPN requests get to an available server? For multiple weeks in a row.
If Google enabled https by default on all of their services, they know how much computing capacity they would need and i'm sure they have plenty to spare.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]

TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Optimum Online

Yet the logic that OOL is doing it for only SSL to youtube and only during prime time is even more extreme. All OOL cares about is bandwidth used. Encrypted youtube does not use a significant amount of additional bandwidth.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore.



MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

Or maybe their snooping devices can't keep up at peak time..They are fruitlessly trying to analyze/decrypt it and this is how fast they can go when overloaded.
Are you saying CV doesn't use these?

Yet, I'm asking if anybody else noticed this pattern...
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]


TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Optimum Online

2 edits

If they are using deep packet inspection, and for arguments sake I certainly will assume they are using it.

1. They almost certainly would not be trying to decrypt packets since it would be a criminal offense.

2. If encrypted packets slowed the deep packet inspection, it would slow your VPN just as much as it would slow your SSL. connection since the real difference between the 2 is the port number. Which is simply a number in the packet.

3. Packet Analysis is CPU intensive for every packet, so if you start to see traffic of one type slowed you are likely to see all traffic slowed, also in packet analysis from something like YouTube you likely would only really get new info from the first packet of each video. Sending Videos from YouTube is not CPU intensive but encrypting Videos is CPU intensive. If the CPU becomes loaded it should not have much of an effect on other traffic, mainly it would effect encrypted traffic.

Again much more likely that the place where there is a real difference in load, ie Encrypting the packet, is the bottle neck.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore.



Jmartz

join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ
reply to MxxCon

Chances are Youtube is just choking on itself. I have problems loading HD videos non-encrypted and FORGET about using it on a mobile device, it's just an awful experience. Even the Tivo has issues with buffering HD videos.

Netflix has a server on Cablevisions network now for caching but even before they had that it was still much better than Youtube.

Youtube has issues they need to fix.



sff

join:1999-07-20
New Rochelle, NY
reply to MxxCon

Google has two pops in my data center. One for Google and one for Youtube. We are in Manhattan. I hope that those two servers are not feeding all of NYC. So therefor I would assume Google has multiple POPs in NYC.



wsudelt
Premium
join:2002-12-03
New Canaan, CT
reply to TheWiseGuy

said by TheWiseGuy:

1. They almost certainly would not be trying to decrypt packets since it would be a criminal offense.

+1


MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

I don't think there's anything criminal about that. We are using THEIR network. For all we know, they have some nation security letter that gives them permission to do that.
So keep that +1 in your pants.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]



swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS
reply to MxxCon

There is or has been threads about youtube issues in about all of the ISP forums here with the same issue over the past couple of years. It is nothing new unfortunately.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts


TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
reply to MxxCon

An encrypted data stream is a electronic communication not readily accessible to general public. The wiretapping law makes it illegal to attempt to decrypt it, without a warrant.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore.



MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

Yes, but unfortunately, national security letter can override that.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]



MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY
reply to swintec

said by swintec:

There is or has been threads about youtube issues in about all of the ISP forums here with the same issue over the past couple of years. It is nothing new unfortunately.

Yes there have been. Even I created such in the past »[OOL] OOL throttling streaming videos?
And every single time comes out a train of OOL-apologists that ignore presented facts.
However, right now do you see people from other ISP reporting that SSL'ed Youtube videos are slow? If it is Youtube's fault, people on other ISPs will see the same problems.

--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS

1 edit

said by MxxCon:

However, right now do you see people from other ISP reporting that SSL'ed Youtube videos are slow? If it is Youtube's fault, people on other ISPs will see the same problems.

actually, i dont know how many users would even bother to watch you tube via https / ssl.

EDIT-- I actually didnt know Youtube defaulted to https: on its own.

have you eliminated any variables between your connnection and your workplace? does business class ool have qos over residential connections on the network? is your business network set up to use different dns servers than your home network? since youtube routes you via your dns location this could alter things completely.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts


MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

said by swintec:

have you eliminated any variables between your connnection and your workplace?

What variables between my connection and my work?
said by swintec:

does business class ool have qos over residential connections on the network?

I do not know if business class ool have qos. I don't see how that relates to this issue.

is your business network set up to use different dns servers than your home network?

no. my local computer uses the same Google dns 8.8.8.8, 8.8.4.4 servers regardless if it's connected to vpn or not.

since youtube routes you via your dns location this could alter things completely.

"dns location" only matter when you are talking about east coast vs west coast. not when picking within the same region.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]


MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY
reply to cablewizzard

said by cablewizzard:

What were the Google CDN IPs you were actually receiving the streams from?

While connected directly to OOL I was downloading video from 173.194.61.19
C:\Users\user>tracert 173.194.61.19

Tracing route to 173.194.61.19 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 8 ms 25 ms 12 ms 10.240.160.213
3 8 ms 14 ms 8 ms 67.59.228.93
4 11 ms 10 ms 26 ms r4-ge1-1-2.mhe.hcvlny.cv.net [67.83.220.133]
5 15 ms 22 ms 10 ms 64.15.5.205
6 15 ms 8 ms 11 ms 451be095.cst.lightpath.net [65.19.120.149]
7 85 ms 82 ms 74 ms 72.14.211.49
8 15 ms 9 ms 12 ms 72.14.239.248
9 78 ms 68 ms 61 ms 72.14.238.233
10 11 ms 10 ms 9 ms 216.239.43.158
11 10 ms 8 ms 13 ms 173.194.61.19

Trace complete.


While connected to work VPN I was downloading video from 173.194.43.41

C:\Users\user>tracert 173.194.43.41

Tracing route to lga15s35-in-f9.1e100.net [173.194.43.41] over a maximum of 30 hops:

1-3 is our network
4 164 ms 204 ms 353 ms mdf016c7613r0001-tge-10-4.nyc2.attens.net [63.240.24.105]
5 12 ms 16 ms 11 ms 12.122.251.41
6 18 ms 17 ms 15 ms cr1.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.131.170]
7 123 ms 126 ms 64 ms gar1.chsct.ip.att.net [12.122.105.57]
8 19 ms 31 ms 17 ms 12.249.88.6
9 12 ms 14 ms 12 ms 72.14.239.248
10 13 ms 13 ms 15 ms 72.14.237.254
11 11 ms 14 ms 11 ms lga15s35-in-f9.1e100.net [173.194.43.41]

Trace complete.


Pretty much identical results.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS

said by MxxCon:

Pretty much identical results.

Except they appear to be completely different routes, except maybe one common hop between the two of them?

Whats identical? The response times?
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts


MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

They are very similar if you look outside of CV/ATT network.
Obviously you will not get absolutely exactly the same traceroutes if you do it twice. Google, like any other properly configured network has multiple routes to the same destination. Your packets are bound to travel through different devices.
And yes, latency is also very similar, especially considering VPN's traceroute is OOL+AT&T networks.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]


cablewizzard

join:2009-06-14
Hicksville, NY
kudos:1

2 recommendations

reply to MxxCon

said by MxxCon:

Or maybe their snooping devices can't keep up at peak time..They are fruitlessly trying to analyze/decrypt it and this is how fast they can go when overloaded.
Are you saying CV doesn't use these?

Yet, I'm asking if anybody else noticed this pattern...

This is just pure, utter conspiracy hogwash.

Snooping devices may sit in a traffic path - but they sure as hell COPY the bitstream, they do NOT under any circumstances delay packets via COPY, PROCESS and REINSERT. First rule of legal (and not-so-legal) interception: don't get noticed.
Pay attention to your Narus deployment guide, dude.

I am reasonably sure I know the answer to this entire thread, but nothing I can say would change your mind.


MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

said by cablewizzard:

I am reasonably sure I know the answer to this entire thread, but nothing I can say would change your mind.

then please stay out of this thread.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]


mbernste
Boosted
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-30
Piscataway, NJ
reply to cablewizzard

I agree with cablewizzard See Profile in that this is pure conspiracy hogwash. The OP is paranoid and when anyone tries to reasonably dissuade them, they attack the individual with insults.



MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

Once again, if you feel that way, please stay out of this thread. You are not helping this issue.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]



Uhmbut

@optonline.net

Maybe there really isn't an issue? At least with Cablevision. I'm pretty sure you don't have enough information to place the blame on CV "throttling" YouTube.



MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

So how do you explain that 100% of the time when I load videos directly from CV it's slow, and 100% of the time when I load videos over VPN in NYC it's fast? 100% of the time, without a single miss ever Google redirects CV to a slow datacenter and 100% of the time without a single miss Google redirects my VPN connection to an underutilized datacenter? Regardless if I use Google DNS or OpenDNS.

So do explain that to me.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]