 rcnmanJason NealisPremium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
kudos:10 | reply to phundercover
Re: Bit Torrent Uploads Being Disconnected During the past few weeks RCN has diligently worked to optimize the performance of our network for our customers. RCN proactively manages it's network to ensure both service availability and performance are maximized. In order to support the recently launched new speed initiatives and future product initiatives we have completed some tuning specifics surrounding the traffic on our network.
The RCN network is built to provide industry leading downstream performance for the typical cable modem customer. Since most cable modem traffic is downstream, RCN has focused on improving that part of our product. As we focus our priorities on higher speed tiers, we have addressed the priority of outbound P2P data. Outbound P2P traffic has been prioritized to ensure optimum service levels on both the downstream and upstream data paths for RCN users. This prioritization will not have any impact on your ability to download data using the more popular peer 2 peer programs, however transmissions without downloading or "seeding" of data will be de-prioritized.
RCN's policy is not to infringe on our customers' use of the peer 2 peer applications to download data, but given the high upstream configurations of faster tier products, we intend to manage the manner in which customers are seeding outside of our network.
Thank you for your understanding
--
Jason Nealis, Director, Operations RCN |
|
|
|
rcnmanJason NealisPremium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
kudos:10 | Hi Everyone,
I thought I'd post a followup to the statement above to clear some of the confusion. The majority of you are indeed very technical in nature are probably want the technical specifics of what is being done and not necessary the statement above.
As a group, yes the amount of bandwidth being sent off-net as it relates to P2P is being slightly managed. Because of the high amount of upstream capacity and forthcoming product upgrades we really had to invoke some changes.
Honestly, Because of the default installation behavior of P2P programs and how after installation most users don't even know they are sharing files it presents a problem.
From some metrics we were seeing upstreams with 90% of overall traffic as P2P.
--
Jason Nealis, Director, Operations RCN |
|
1 edit | reply to rcnman
Jason, thank you for your reply. At least the prevarication of the last 6-8 weeks is over. As you will have gathered from this forum the result (intentional or otherwise) of the de-prioritization of seeding traffic has effectively stopped users from uploading while not downloading. Surely a better balance can be achieved between uploading and downloading without seriously adversely the improvements you wish to make. The words 'sledgehammer' and 'nut' spring to mind.
Regards, Steve |
|
| reply to rcnman
Jason, to follow up on your 'clarification' was reducing the upload speed considered as an alternative, and why has it taken RCN so long to come clean? |
|
rcnmanJason NealisPremium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
kudos:10 | reply to phundercover
phundercover,
I agree, and being honest again  We are really awaiting a OS release that will give us more knobs and tweaks then what we have now. Some forthcoming product enhancements moved up the schedule, but soon we will have a OS release that will allow us to manage this on a CMTS basis and not have to group it all into one bucket.
Noting the sledghammer / nutt approach we really really backed off what was first implemented, I think it was noted in this thread when the improvement was noticed.
I know this isn't optimal at the least for those of you who really like the seeding and stats, but there is advantages as we do have some ability to enhance the performance of P2P from RCN USER to RCN USER.
--
Jason Nealis, Director, Operations RCN |
|
rcnmanJason NealisPremium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
kudos:10 | reply to phundercover
said by phundercover:Jason, to follow up on your 'clarification' was reducing the upload speed considered as an alternative, and why has it taken RCN so long to come clean? Scared of being flamed and ripped to shreds?  j/k
To be honest it's still in beta /evaluation stages and we were hope full to get the new OS release to allow us more tweaks to enhance performance and thus lessen the impact.
We were hopeful we could tweak it so that the power users were happy and the users who weren't focused on seeding were tweaked and everyone was happy.
But then this thread took a life of it's own and then it took several internal discussion on do we wait until we know in what fashion these tweaks will be in the long run.
I really do apologize for the silence, we just wanted to communicate this the right way and internally we went round and round on what that right way was..
In the end just coming clean is the right choice.
--
Jason Nealis, Director, Operations RCN |
|
rcnmanJason NealisPremium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
kudos:10 | reply to phundercover
said by phundercover:Jason, to follow up on your 'clarification' was reducing the upload speed considered as an alternative, and why has it taken RCN so long to come clean? With regards to reducing the upstream speed. The way this is deployed is we are not touching the rate of speed in which you can seed. We have limited the total amount of connections.
Thus probably you will see during non busy times better rates then peak times.
Right now from the markets it's all grouped into one big bucket. When we get the new release instead of managing lets say ALL of Boston with one profile, we can build a management profile per each CMTS in Boston.
--
Jason Nealis, Director, Operations RCN |
|
ESPN
join:2003-02-22
Allentown, PA | reply to rcnman
Jason,
You mentioned forthcoming product upgrades. Can you elaborate on this?
Mach 20? |
|
| reply to phundercover
RCN is probably using shoddy equipment (purchased from Nortel for example). If they had a fully-meshed network running on Cisco equipment, they could simply enable WFQ on all rate-adaption interfaces.
Of course, why do something reasonable when an idiot response is perfectly feasible.
One reason why I will never ever deal with Rogers ever again for anything. THey cannot even provide CableTV worth a pinch of coon turd, so how can one expect them to provide IP services, which are much more complicated. |
|
