dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
57

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Re: Changes in Bell AGAS network

Ok, I just received word from Bell about those 4 links. It turns out they are being proactive and that there is nothing going on with the existing links. Which makes sense since I could see it...

So as it stands now, the links are increasingly balancing out, we keep tweaking to try to make sure the capacity is best used but some links are still running a bit hot while others are not at all. Once everything balances out fully we should should be good for a while.

zacron
Premium Member
join:2008-11-26
Frozen Hoth

zacron

Premium Member

COuld you please flesh this out a little more?

Thanks,
Zacron
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

said by zacron:

COuld you please flesh this out a little more?

In the past, this used to mean they kill sessions on overloaded links and hope they will come back on one of their more over-used links.

Even earlier than that, I think it used to be pushing the "Big Red Button" and wiping all sessions on either a whole link or a whole ERX.

noemails
@bell.ca

noemails

Anon

this is a teksavvy capacity issue has nothing to do with bell. when i worked at bell we had a capacity issue....they ran out of ips....why did that happen....some manager looked at the ammount of calls related to login errors...to this day they still insist on the bi b1 bl so they deciced to send out modems that could login and retain the user id and password,..worked wonders until those clients snagged every ip bell had,...chris spent over a month running a script that hit al those modems and changed it to connect on demand...this is a capacity issue and teksavvy is snot being honest about it.

if the slowdowns ae just youtube related then they need to come up with a response to that,,,,.if it si everything slow in specific arears then its a capacity issue
UK_Dave
join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON

UK_Dave to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
So now I'm confused - it doesn't take much at the best of times.

Are you saying there is a defined problem, and it's affecting DSL capacity, and it's going to be fixed? Or is it a "I thought there was a problem to fix but actually there isn't"?

An unworkable internet all evening, seven days a week, is starting to take it's toll. And I mean unusuable - 800ms to 1000+ms pings - means no gaming, no browsing, no web-based email, no videos even at lowest resolution

Is there a date I can wait for? A project about to go live?

TSI Gabe
Router of Packets
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Gatineau, QC

TSI Gabe

Premium Member

800ms-1000ms? That's not normal at all. You've got something else altogether going on.
UK_Dave
join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON

UK_Dave

Member

Check the multiple tests and postings on my account.

It's been that way for months.

It's not wiring or hardware. I've replaced the whole damn lot. Including the demarc and internal wiring.

Normal daytime/overnight - I get 35ms to 40ms pings - so I know it's congestion related.

The only question is who is congested, and who has ownership of this problem to get it fixed. I have the ticket number you raised with Bell, but after a "slow speed pattern match" response, nothing has been done despite there supposedly being a marker on my file for someone to be following it up.

As the folks on TSI IRC know - I've actually changed my hours of work to fit in around the unusable connection.

EDIT: In my head, I'm giving it till around spring. At that point, I'm going to have to cancel if it's not in hand.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned) to noemails

Member

to noemails
said by noemails :

this is a teksavvy capacity issue has nothing to do with bell.

Actually it has everything to do with Bell. The connections are spread across the 30 odd links that TSI has and its the poor load balancing from Bell that results in some links being under utilized and others being over utilized. If Bell offered 10Gb AGAS ports as they should have been 2-3 years ago this wouldn't be an issue.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

said by 34764170:

If Bell offered 10Gb AGAS ports as they should have been 2-3 years ago this wouldn't be an issue.

Without LAG or equivalent, balancing could still be an issue on 10G, just not quite as much of one.

Having 1G links would be a non-issue if Bell's and TSI's equipment could support 16-64 links per LAG and LAG was enabled. They'd have one logical 30+Gbps link with potential for near-perfect balancing.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned)

Member

said by InvalidError:

Without LAG or equivalent, balancing could still be an issue on 10G, just not quite as much of one.

I didn't mean it would resolve the issue all together but it would make it much easier to deal with as opposed to 32+ individual links.
said by InvalidError:

Having 1G links would be a non-issue if Bell's and TSI's equipment could support 16-64 links per LAG and LAG was enabled. They'd have one logical 30+Gbps link with potential for near-perfect balancing.

Some vendors have extended LACP to allow for up to 16 group members, but IMO its still a poor use of equipment and resources.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

said by 34764170:

Some vendors have extended LACP to allow for up to 16 group members, but IMO its still a poor use of equipment and resources.

If most of the equipment is already there and largely under-utilized anyhow, whether or not it is used efficiently makes little difference since this is still likely cheaper than upgrading it.

Also, with the CBB rates as they are now (or even if they got dropped to ~10k$/Gbps), it will be profitable regardless of how bad efficiency might be so no pressure there - the inefficient setup forces ISPs to buy more capacity than they really need so upgrading could actually cut into profits beyond the upgrade costs themselves.

As Bell discovered for themselves when they disputed the CRTC's dismissal of past network conditioning efforts: the CRTC's costing rules do not reward efficiency.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned)

Member

said by InvalidError:

If most of the equipment is already there and largely under-utilized anyhow, whether or not it is used efficiently makes little difference since this is still likely cheaper than upgrading it.

I'm referring to TSI's perspective.. and it does result in somewhat poor utilization with the current setup. The "upgrading" is them adding some 10Gb line cards into the chassis on Bell's side. Not a big deal.
said by InvalidError:

Also, with the CBB rates as they are now (or even if they got dropped to ~10k$/Gbps), it will be profitable regardless of how bad efficiency might be so no pressure there - the inefficient setup forces ISPs to buy more capacity than they really need so upgrading could actually cut into profits beyond the upgrade costs themselves.

They can add all the capacity they want but it doesn't resolve the poor balancing and poor utilization.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

said by 34764170:

They can add all the capacity they want but it doesn't resolve the poor balancing and poor utilization.

You were talking from TSI's perspective, I was talking from Bell's perspective. From Bell's perspective, making things more efficient makes them lose revenue because GAS ISPs would not need to over-purchase as many links and as much CBB.

The way costing rules are arranged, they do not reward incumbents trying to be more efficient so Bell naturally tries very hard not to do it.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by InvalidError:

....The way costing rules are arranged, they do not reward incumbents trying to be more efficient, so Bell naturally tries very hard not to do it.

 
And why do Cats kill Birds ?

Because they are Cats.