dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13
share rss forum feed

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to zacron

Re: Changes in Bell AGAS network

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

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


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

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
kudos:5

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

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

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
kudos:5

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

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

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
kudos:5

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
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

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.