larytet
join:2004-11-26
Unity, ME
| Ellacoya
Short introduction.
Ellacoya indeed makes installation somewhere or at least they are looking for field/integration engineers to support the customers. i do not know how ISPs use their equipment, but frankly i doubt that Shaw is throttling P2P traffic.
Main part.
I assume that the Ellacoya promise that the shaper is statefull is true. In simple terms it means that they create an entry for every established TCP connection and keep the record in the database through the whole lifecycle of the connection (i have my doubts about how reliable such thing can be if they do not terminate the connection in their box, but this is separate issue and not related to the current problem). I would post on some popular website the following suggestion to all BT users who suspect that traffic shapers installed on their gateways
Try one of alternatives
* Start download multiple dummy torrents. Configure your BT client to use 1kB/s of upstream and 1kb/s of downstream and up to 2000 connections for every one of these dummy downloads.
* Run SYN port scan using port scan tool like NMAP from »www.insecure.org/nmap/ for some well known and reliable WEB server like Google or Yahoo.
Explanation.
Traffic shaper keeps/records all existing TCP connections or 'flows'. Because performance of the box is expected to be high they probably use special kind memory like CAM. It is very fast but has limited size. Let check how reliable the box is. I suggest to create multiple dummy TCP connections and run them in the background. You can call it stress test. Every desktop can create about 60K connections simultaneously.
the rest is here
»larytet.sourceforge.net/howto.shtm
also see discussion at »www.p2pforums.com/viewtopic.php?···45#72845 |
|
Thingamajig
Premium
join:2004-11-03
B.C.
| said by larytet  : i doubt that Shaw is throttling P2P traffic.  Helllloooo! There is a audio file with the President of Shaw cable admitting this action available on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporations web site. Do you need further proof???
»Shaw President admits bandwidth throttling! |
|
larytet
join:2004-11-26
Unity, ME
| reply to larytet
Ok. i see it.
i can just repeat my suggestions. i think that there is way to brign Ellcoya equipment to it's knees or whatever it has instead. 5 new connections/s every Shawn client and it's probably over for the box. and nobody can argue that 5 connections/s is too much. The moment the box fails Shawn will have to fall to backup and eventually discontinue using it.
i beleive that limitation of the equipment is about 200K new connections/s and/or 50M simultaneous connections total. Create dummy (but active and running) connections and test the system.
another approach is defense like »www.yousendit.com/
upload the file and publish the link.
They are not limiting HTTP traffic, right ? |
|
really_Are_you_that_
@shawcable.net
| reply to larytet
Are you kidding me? Have you read over the technical specs of what Ellacoya has posted on their equipment? Let alone I would assume this company would not let all the cats out of the bag publicly. I would bet it does way more then what it say's it can do on the website. If you think a single or even 100's of cable modems are going to make a dent in this thing go to town. I personally think you’re an idiot. Even so we have no idea what they are doing with or how they are using these pieces of equipment. Is there 1 device that does all of the shaping, or one per city, one per co, one per cable router? We have no idea how they are using them. I really doubt Shaw will be anything but secretive about this information as well. Read over the technical specs on the web site for Ellacoya and even see if you want to try it.
Come on give me a break. Yeah it sucks, our free P2P ride is over, and I personally have gone back to good old methods that don't seem to be shaped. IRC / and news servers. |
|
larytet
join:2004-11-26
Unity, ME
| you probably are very wrong
i know how network processors work.
i am not talking about 1 modem and not about 100s modems
i am talking about 50K subscribers behind single CMTS.
The box is one per CMTS - this is the only way to reach reasonable performance.
they ARE keepin performance in secret and i guess there is a reason for this. they are not going to publish their test cases because they are not standing in the worst case.
my humble opinion of course.
news servers cost money
IRC does not support swarming
we are not talking about "free P2P ride". i do not care about copyright you download. this is not the issue here. the issue is that Shaw should provide service according the signed agreement and in the agreement there is nothing about bitTorrent or Skype.
what makes you to think that packets to/form IRC/news servers can not not be dropped ? It is even easier. It does not require Ellacoya - any CMTS can do it. Policy by IP destination and/or port number you can find in any base level router. And policy can be done with much better performance.
to all:
I think that I answered emails (3 emails only last month) i received from Shaw subscribers.
best regards
P.S. you can contact me by email with additional question if arise. |
|
larytet
join:2004-11-26
Unity, ME
| reply to really_Are_you_that_
from ellacoya datasheet
Operators place the e30 in access networks
serving up to 64,000 subscribers. The e30 uses
Intelligent Flow Management techniques to
reuse individual flow table entries for multiple
TCP and UDP connections on the network. This
dramatically increases the effective capacity of
the switch without any loss of subscriber- or
application-level visibility and control. For core
network placements, the e30 can manage traffic
on a subnet basis with the ability to drill down to
the subscriber level on certain subnets, giving
operators maximum flexibility for placement on
the network.
....
For resiliency, all Ellacoya switches offer Soft
Bypass, which acts as a safety valve to protect
the switch from storm conditions on the network.
The 4-port GigE e30 adds internal Hardware
Bypass with failover circuits that form a virtual
wire between pairs of ports plus support for
external Optical Bypass switches for protection
against power loss.
...............
1,000,000 fully-qualified unidirectional flows
512,000 policy-forwarding flows
»www.ellacoya.com/products/Ellacoya_e30.pdf
i can translate it for you if you wish |
|
larytet
join:2004-11-26
Unity, ME
| reply to larytet
Translaion:
you need 500 modems with 2000 TCP connections each to cause Ellacoya switch to fallback to "soft bypass".
Shaw subscribers can easily prove to Shaw that the company is wasting money when buy traffic shapers instead of improving infrastructure. |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
 ·BlueYonder Interne..
 ·Be There
| reply to larytet
quote:
i am talking about 50K subscribers behind single CMTS.
The box is one per CMTS - this is the only way to reach reasonable performance.
No way and wrong respectively. Not likely to have 50k subscribers on a single CMTS unless it's *very* high density, a Cisco uBR 7246VXR fully loaded with MC16 cards will do you for maybe 6000 customers, to hold 50,000 customers you'd need 40 downstreams and more upstreams, even with QPSK 6.4MHz wide DOCSIS 2 upstreams.
One could quite happily place these devices at a traffic aggregation point, a router behind a number of CMTS, depending on the bandwidth demands and packets per second flowing. This is the most common way of doing traffic shaping where deep packet inspection is required, at transport layer as access/edge isn't an option.
quote:
Policy by IP destination and/or port number you can find in any base level router. And policy can be done with much better performance.
Really? In the Cisco case you're talking about NBAR, which is expensive on CPU. Routers are primarily layer 2 and 3 devices, with ASIC / PIC based switching and routing engines. Profiling based on TCP ports is a little outside the remit of most routers, deep packet inspection an even larger jump, and the only way to properly manage traffic, especially when talking about dynamic port services.
To say that routers are better at traffic shaping than a dedicated traffic management device which will have an ASIC or programmable IC tweaked for the sole purpose of deep packet inspection at wire speed is absurd. I would imagine if Shaw could shape large amounts of customers without spending out on an Ellacoya they would, don't you think?
Just to be double certain, what you are talking about is suggesting users do a DDoS on their own ISP's equipment. You think the CMTS will be able to handle that amount of traffic? On the upside it's impossible for a cable subscriber to generate a thousand packets a second as due to TDMA and DOCSIS timing restrictions a cable sub maxes at 160-170 packets a second upstream anyway. |
|
larytet
join:2004-11-26
Unity, ME
4 edits | Not likely to have 50k subscribers on a single CMTS unless it's *very* high density, a Cisco uBR 7246VXR fully loaded with MC16 cards will do you for maybe 6000 customers 6000 ports CMTSs are not the only box available on the market.
In the Cisco case you're talking about NBAR, which is expensive on CPU. Routers are primarily layer 2 and 3 devices, with ASIC / PIC based switching and routing engines.
Agree on application awareness for routers. But it can be done in diferent way. Regular CAM memory can support lookup for 128 bits keys, like IP destination, IP source, IP port, TOS, etc. There is no problem to drop IRC traffic (if we want to filter ALL packets out and this is what i ment), because port number and destination IP are both well known.
To say that routers are better at traffic shaping than a dedicated traffic management device which will have an ASIC or programmable IC tweaked for the sole purpose of deep packet inspection at wire speed is absurd.
i never said that router/forwarder is good in traffic shaping, but it IS good in dropping packets according to simple rule like if IP port=6776 drop the packet ALWAYS.
Just to be double certain, what you are talking about is suggesting users do a DDoS on their own ISP's equipment. You think the CMTS will be able to handle that amount of traffic?
You can call it DDoS if you wish, but the nature of the attack is different. There is no significant traffic involved - actually i suggest to cap the connections by 1K/s. My suggestions is to create multiple slow TCP connections. Talking about CMTS it can handle theoretical worst case traffic. I can not beleive that CSCO CMTS is not wirespeed. I will give look to the datasheet later.
On the upside it's impossible for a cable subscriber to generate a thousand packets a second as due to TDMA and DOCSIS timing restrictions a cable sub maxes at 160-170 packets a second upstream anyway.
No need to generate more than 160 packets/s. regular TCP connecton keepalive would be enough. see above.
»larytet.sourceforge.net/howto.shtml |
|
larytet
join:2004-11-26
Unity, ME
1 edit | reply to Ignite
btw why not to give this a try ?
i mean what are you afraid of ?
find 10 legal torrent files with reasonable number of peers (Linux distros are good)
start them all, limit the number of connections to let's say 5000 total, limit upstream and downstream to 1KB/s for each torrent, wait a couple of weeks |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
| reply to larytet
quote:
btw why not to give this a try ?
i mean what are you afraid of ?
Well a few things really. Firstly CMTS isn't really intended to manage traffic of this nature, and if a load of users do this they'll DoS their own CMTS. Second what you propose is a SYN flood of ISP equipment, however little traffic it involves that's what it is. Thirdly custs doing this will render the upstreams they are on useless to any other users by using all the upstream transmit opportunities on the upstream MAP.
I work with CMTSes, they can NOT handle worst case traffic, they are built to handle the usual nature of traffic, mostly large concatenated transmissions with a very limited amount of this nature of traffic. A CMTS faced with a considerable proportion of subscribers doing this will grind to a halt. Pointless looking at the datasheet as this will vary depending on which NPE is in the box as well as which line cards, which modulation schemes, and any other CPU intensive tasks that may be running on the box such as SNMP monitoring, etc.
quote:
i never said that router/forwarder is good in traffic shaping, but it IS good in dropping packets according to simple rule like if IP port=6776 drop the packet ALWAYS.
I'm sure that this would really please subscribers, completely pointless apart from as protection against known trojan and exploit ports.
Maybe you should check out Thingamajig's post rather than trying to encourage subscribers of another ISP to attack the kit that is providing them access to the internet. It's heartening to see that the only thing your suggestion has met with so far is derision. Technically flawed, illegal and fundamentally stupid. 'Stress test' your own ISP, see how they appreciate it rather than encouraging users justifiably upset to do the experiment for you. |
|
larytet
join:2004-11-26
Unity, ME
4 edits | Technically flawed, illegal and fundamentally stupid It is not illegal to open 2000 TCP connections. Actually i do it from time to time.
It is not technically flawed in my view. I do not accept your arguments about CMTS performance. You said right things about different issue. CMTS CPU handles normally only SNMP, ARP, DHCP. Main stream IP traffic (data) flaws without participation of CPU - there are dedicated ASIC/network processors, etc. Wirespeed performance is must for CMTS (some pizza boxes can be an exclusion). did you work with »www.arrisi.com/ ? i will appreciate any info/opinion related to their products.
My suggestion to create multiple dummy connections does NOT consume significant part of bandwidth and this is not SYN attack, because all connections are going to stay for long time, like days or even weeks.
The second alternative with NMAP (SYN port scan) is not what usually done. It is perfectly legal to connect to port 80 www.yahoo.com, keep connection opened for 5s and then close it. Actually FireFox Tab Autoreload does exactly this - you will need Tabbrowser Extensions from »texturizer.net/firefox/extensions/#tbe
My post was a suggestion, nothing more. I do not care what Shaw subsribers will do or will not do. After more than a couple of emails i decided to answer all questions using some public forum. "You asked what i think, You get it"
returning to Shaw and it's problems with providing reliable services with law latency, etc. I understand very well that VoIP, multiplayer games require QoS or eventually traffic shaping. I understand that cable is shared media and due to deficiencies. of DOCSIS experiences more troubles with handling upstream traffic (than, for example, SDSL).
I think you understand as well as me that UDP based P2P protocol not using TCP flow control can fill the upstream to the CMTS no matter what traffic shaper does (i would glad to hear any comments regarding this). Essentially it means installing of these devices only for the reason of providing QoS is wasting money.
It does not mean that there is no solution even in case of cable provider. DOCSIS 2.0 porvides native QoS and Voice Support. Probably Shaw decided that replacing CMTS's is more expensive than installing Ellacoya's. How many cable providers in the world reached the same conclusion ? Two ? Three ? Let's be honest here (see also »www.gigaom.com/2004/11/sbcs_voip_end_r.php)
Shaw wants to provide VoIP and Shaw wants their VoIP be better than any other and Shaw does not want to spend money. My humble opinion that there is no free meals.
Bottom line - installing of Ellacoya to throttle P2P is not that great idea as Shaw management probably believes. It looks great on the paper, but in reality they increase complexity of the network and consequently maintenance costs, latency, jitter.
have nice weekend.
P.S. Do you have HTML version of your resume »www.arap38.dsl.pipex.com/carlresume.doc ? I am not sure that Open Office rendered the file right. you can google my nickname to find my cv if you care.
P.S.1 i read the posts (most of the posts) in the link Thingamajig provided. i could not find the MP3 itself.
BitTorrent is sapping up to 90% of the backbone of Shaw Cache for the bittorrent traffic is relatively simple thing to do and probably cheaper than Ellacoya boxes. If Shaw worries about outward traffic they can keep all or most of the traffic (90%) inside of the network. Isn't it great to have satisfied and happy customers and do not have any traffic from other ISPs.
Another approach to the problem is to hire Mr. Cohen to develop embedded high performance BitTorrent client. I estimate $200K US R&D costs and $0.5M production. 5Tbytes of disks, 2GB RAM and Linux stripped for the bittorent application. I almost see the box already. I would call it btCache.
Think also about BT extension for FireFox (if it happens). If video blogs start to use P2P to deliver VoD than Shaw effectively will throttle legitimate traffic - access to the video servers. |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
2 edits | Here's a CMTS doing what a CMTS does (not one belonging to my current employer btw):
CPU utilization for five seconds: 77%/73%; one minute: 78%; five minutes: 78%
Throw a load more packets at the baby, force its' NPE to work harder processing them through access lists, managing the CEF for the packets, increase load on the line cards arranging the upstream MAPs and it all adds up.
IP Input and CEF both consume CPU.
How do you plan on keeping the TCP connections alive without sending a SYN as a keep alive? Doing this as many times as upstream will permit? Sounds a bit SYN flood like to me.
Unfortunately wirespeed performance isn't going to happen on a CMTS due to no CMTS being able to manage as much traffic on its' HFC side as it can on its' IP side. Depending on the NPE in the CMTS can be pretty badly short of wirespeed.
The NMAP scan you suggest confuses me. It's perfectly legal to connect to a website but having a load of users doing it at the same time is a bit scary.
quote:
I think you understand as well as me that UDP based P2P protocol not using TCP flow control can fill the upstream to the CMTS no matter what traffic shaper does (i would glad to hear any comments regarding this).
Absolutely right, having conducted experiments it maxed around the 165 datagram per second mark, although no P2P app that I'm aware of relies solely on UDP, or uses it for file transfer.
Regarding my resume, I had forgotten it was there and I'm afraid there isn't an HTML version at this time.
Regarding BT cache, P2P caches already exist and are deployed in the odd service provider network caching BT, Gnutella, FastTrack, WinMX and other protocols. |
|
larytet
join:2004-11-26
Unity, ME
4 edits | CPU utilization for five seconds: 77%/73%; one minute: 78%; five minutes: 78% This is bad i have to tell you. this is really really bad. I would suggest to replace the box with something bigger or to investigate why this CPU consumption. What is the current packet rate in the system ?
How do you plan on keeping the TCP connections alive without sending a SYN as a keep alive? Doing this as many times as upstream will permit? Sounds a bit SYN flood like to me. The followinf is quote: RFC 1122 states that keepalive should not be enabled unless the application requests it. If enabled, the keepalive probe timer must be configurable with a default of not less than two hours. Keepalive should be set on a system-wide, not per-connection basis.
Unfortunately wirespeed performance isn't going to happen on a CMTS due to no CMTS being able to manage as much traffic on its' HFC side as it can on its' IP side. Yes, indeed. Though most have packet rate limiters at least in the upstream direction. But HFC interface can schedule the modems TX according to the available upstream (this is DOCSIS, right ?). Theoretically every modem has it's chance to send a packet. If this or that CMTS does not work like this and fails to fill backbone connection should we blame BT and install middle man ? i guess the answer is to find better systems. I understand that you like Cisco. You learned their MIBs, CLIs, etc. you know to configure them easy, you spent lot of time and effort to learn the equipment. its hard for you to imagine that there is something else (better ?) on the market. Shaw technicians are probably under pressure of the managemnet to deliver service which is not deliverable with the equipment in place unless everybody around plays according some strict rules, like 1 email/day between 9 and 11PM, 10 WEB pages every morning and one installation (download) a month (please use monday nights)
The NMAP scan you suggest confuses me. It's perfectly legal to connect to a website but having a load of users doing it at the same time is a bit scary. Forget word NMAP. I used it as an example how TCP connections can be established periodically. Firefox can do the same. TCP connection will stay alive as far as no peer sends disconnect and (optionally) peers send keep alive each other. In reality no data whatsoever flows across an idle TCP connection...This means we can start a client process that establishes a TCP connection with a server, and walk away for hours, days, weeks or months, and the connection remains up. Intermediate routers can crash and reboot, phone lines may go down and back up, but as long as neither host at the ends of the connection reboots, the connection remains established.. And in case of keepalive enabled we are talking about ~1 packet/min and not milliseconds and not even seconds. Actual keepalive timer depends on the TCP/IP implementation, but usually is not less than 30s. Run Azureus, up number of simultaneous connections to 200 and watch your firewall counters. Try 500, then 1000, then 2000 connections. Just this very morning i was watching 1000 leachers downloading the same file. I could establish and maintain simultaneuos connections to 300-350 of them with total bandwith under 20Kb/s.
Another interesting example is CNN.com. The page is rather heavy and not stripped out like Google. Every 5 minutes or so the page refreshes itself. It does not mean that Shaw is going to throttle traffic to CNN too. If Shaws network is not scalable this is a problem which can not be solved by traffic shaping. They can not put on top of it more services without more investment into the existing infrastructure.
although no P2P app that I'm aware of relies solely on UDP, or uses it for file transfer. I am developing one. You can try send LOOK request »larytet.sourceforge.net/btRat.shtml . In the current version it works really like DDoS - the application makes IP scan, but this is of course temporary phase. i make some research and this thing helps me. I am sorry that my project web site gets hits because of Ellacoya and not because of search engine, fast data transfer, built in version manager and other features.
Probably i do not make it clear enough. The idea behind my post was to prove to Shaw that this is pointless to use this approach (Ellacoya) to solve this specific problem (P2P). I have never thought that Shaw subscribers would start deliberately attack their own ISP, but the scenario is possible and Shaw has to think about it. There are places in the world where money can be used more efficiently. It does not mean that there is no application at all for Ellacoya box - actually there is.
P.S. from wikipedia »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateful_firewall |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
| reply to larytet
Haha I'm not a big fan of Cisco and prefer Juniper, however there are some stories behind that I won't go into too much...
Simply a CMTS will have more backbone connectivity than HFC side connectivity, this is just the way it is. A dual gigabit connected Cisco uBR 7246VXR fully loaded with DOCSIS 2 MC28U cards running with 256QAM downstreams and 6.4MHz wide 16QAM upstreams won't even get near to filling a single gige let alone both.
The TCP keepalives you are discussing assume that the Ellacoya switches hold connection states for a considerable time. This probably isn't the case, I'd expect the session purging period for the device to be a matter of a few seconds rather than 30 or more, it's more efficient on its' memory to hold states briefly and makes the device more resilient to any DoS attack going through it.
Your project is an interesting one, will be intriguing to see if it comes to fruition, however I have to admit that ISPs do have every right to either increase prices so that they can cope with the P2P traffic that consumes 60 - 70% of their bandwidth and remain profitable, or to manage this traffic level down. Unfortunately we are facing a time when we either have to pay for what we use or control what we use. The ISP's bandwidth isn't unlimited or unmetered and those who force upgrades should really be offered a chance to pay more for the extra they use.
That's a matter of perspective anyway. P2P caching is a scenario fraught with legal problems, despite Usenet being a cache for such materials, and P2P is an issue to all service providers.
Have you worked for a service provider? |
|
larytet
join:2004-11-26
Unity, ME
4 edits | Simply a CMTS will have more backbone connectivity than HFC side connectivity, this is just the way it is. Yes, that;s true. Backbone connections are usually in units of 100M or 1G and it is not related to the HFC interface (line card) performance. Though on high density CMTS the goal and system requirements is to stand in wirespeed for smallest possible packet. not many do it but with time they improve. Shaw is going to provide VoIP services, right ? 100% availability, no packet loss, etc. etc. If Ellacoya is their only solution it IS scary.
I have to admit that ISPs do have every right to either increase prices so that they can cope with the P2P traffic that consumes 60 - 70% of their bandwidth and remain profitable, or to manage this traffic level down. Fair enough, but do not tell that you provide better service than DSL at lower price. Inform your clients in timely manner that you are going to install additional equipment enforcing network policy. It is bad PR, but who promised to Shaw shareholders that the life is going to be picnic ?
The TCP keepalives you are discussing assume that the Ellacoya switches hold connection states for a considerable time. This probably isn't the case, I'd expect the session purging period for the device to be a matter of a few seconds rather than 30 or more, it's more efficient on its' memory to hold states briefly and makes the device more resilient to any DoS attack going through it. If they keep connections briefly it's worse for them, because establishing of the connection is more costly than just checking the packet against existing connection.
Your project is an interesting one, will be intriguing to see if it comes to fruition One of the important parts of protocol is the message structure. The idea is taken from telecom protocols with main goal to make packets as small as possible and define information elements in a way that the packets can be easily handled in hardware. For example, very simple FPGA can distinguish between LOOK and DATA request and make forwarding decision accordingly. There are many things i already thought about and many things to think remain, but overall this approach to the problem of data delivery is the right one. if not me, than somebody else eventually will do it and content providers will get the protection they deserve.
Have you worked for a service provider? No. I am a developer and most of my experience in telecom, not datacom. I met with technicians and provided field support for different devices. But it was occasional and not mainstream. |
|
larytet
join:2004-11-26
Unity, ME
| reply to larytet
Rodi project released first beta
PNG files with some performance tests »larytet.sourceforge.net/images/tests/
Lesson 5 of the user manual to start
»larytet.sourceforge.net/userManu···on%205.0
use project forum at source forge for questions »sourceforge.net/forum/?group_id=97969
returning to Ellacoya - i need beta testers with modems behind Ellacoya who could check data transfer (at least two peers). Dynamic IPs is OK.
Current version of SW does not make an attempt to fake RTP/HTTP, but it can be done fairly easy if test shows that Ellacoya drops Rodi packets.
enjoy. |
|
Thingamajig
Premium
join:2004-11-03
B.C.
| reply to larytet
So folks throttling appears to be the trend of ISP's in Canada. The Rogers forum is jumping with the information of the »www.sandvine.com/solutions/default.asp . It's another unit similar to the Ellacoya. It also states Bell (Sympatico) is also a customer of theirs. That leaves us in the dark about Telus...hmmmm ... wonder what they are doing?!?
Briefly comparing the two with the info on their respective web sites IMO the Ellacoya is a little bit nastier. |
|
larytet
join:2004-11-26
Unity, ME
4 edits | So folks throttling appears to be the trend of ISP's in Canada.
my point always was that throttling is possible only for capping total bandwidth, but not for the filtering this or that specific protocol.
Sure they can prioritize traffic from/to their own video/voice servers above any other kind of traffic, but thats it.
Cable industry has a huge problem cable subscribers are yet to discover. Cables will have eventually to install separate CMTS in every building if they want to provide video on demand service and interconnect all these CMTSs (or hubs) with fiber.
I mean that the cable companies are only starting to invest money. The vast part of the investment is ahead. And it should be done in the conditions when legal video on demand costs $8/view. no way it is going to work. i would prefer to go to Blockbuster if to choose to pay 100USD for the high-speed connection and another 40USD for the movies. i can "deliver" movies myself.
In areas with low population density it is going to be especially painful to put fiber only to serve a small community with 5 or 6 families.
returning to traffic policy. ISP should reach clear decision do they drop P2P packets or do they cache the data to facilitate data transfer. P2P networks will fight back in the former and cooperate in later case.
P.S. Using contact form of sandvine »www.sandvine.com/general/lets_talk.asp
i sent following
Evaluation of my approach in the Rodi project (see »larytet.sourceforge.net/btRatDesign.shtml#4) i suggest to encrypt the payload of UDP packets and fake RTP traffic including faking SIP call establish.i will appreciate any technical opinions regarding this idea
thank you.
Frankly I do not expect any answer, because in my view there is a fundamental problem with this kind of devices and there is no reason for their staff to spend valuable time and read my wrongly spelled humble ramifications but we will see. |
|
stolen
join:2004-04-12
Calgary, AB
| said by larytet :Cable industry has a huge problem cable subscribers are yet to discover. Cables will have eventually to install separate CMTS in every building if they want to provide video on demand service and interconnect all these CMTSs (or hubs) with fiber. Define every building...
Either Shaw has already done this or they've gotten around it somehow, as I can order on demand movies from my remote. |
|
