dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed

xenophon

join:2007-09-17
reply to 34764170

Re: my only gripe

I don't know how Google would enforce 'no servers'. If they do I suspect they would not limit outbound bandwidth but might limit the number of outbound connections on the uplink to a dozen or so concurrent. That would be reasonable as you could still use things like Orb or Playon for personal/family use.



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

This is not the kind of limit they will enforce, it's a cover-your-ass rule.

Google is selling a residential service. This sort of service makes assumptions about typical use cases in order to make financial sense at the price offered. A business or enterprise, however, would have a very different usage profile, and the ISP could either lose a lot of money on that customer, or they could even cause congestion (more on that in a bit). As such, ISPs will put in the no-server clause so that if some business does start using and abusing the connection, they have a clause in the AUP that lets them terminate problem customers. This is not intended so much to catch your home server, but so that if a small business tries to power their rack of servers on the thing, there is grounds for termination.

That said, let me address the bandwidth for a moment. Google is promising 1 gigabit symmetrical, and they're delivering that over GPON. I believe I've heard the split Google will use is 1:32 (32 customers per node), but I can't confirm that. GPON supports, per node, a shared speed of roughly 2.5 Gbps down and 1.25 Gbps up. For a typical residential scenario, that's enough that people aren't going to have speed concerns, but throw an enterprise on there with a rack of servers and things get iffy.

A home user isn't going to max out a gigabit upstream all day long, but a business could easily do that 24/7. Suddenly, the other 31 users on the node have only 250 megabit of shared bandwidth available (although in practice a second customer would see about 600ish). There's not enough bandwidth to go around with GPON for large businesses to be sharing it with residential users; enterprises should be on dedicate fibre.

There's a wrinkle here, though. Typically you don't deliver 1 Gbps on GPON because there's not a lot of bandwidth go go around. You would want at least 10GPON for that, but 10GPON isn't really seen in the real world yet. If you throw a gigabit connection at every customer, it gets really easy to saturate the entire node's upstream capacity with BitTorrent or something. It doesn't take many users running BitTorrent on gigabit connections to saturate that total of 1.25 Gbps...

For this reason, we may see Google being more aggressive with the no-servers clause than residential ISPs typically are.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



somms

join:2003-07-28
Salt Lake City, UT

said by Guspaz:

This is not the kind of limit they will enforce, it's a cover-your-ass rule.

Google is selling a residential service. This sort of service makes assumptions about typical use cases in order to make financial sense at the price offered. A business or enterprise, however, would have a very different usage profile, and the ISP could either lose a lot of money on that customer, or they could even cause congestion (more on that in a bit). As such, ISPs will put in the no-server clause so that if some business does start using and abusing the connection, they have a clause in the AUP that lets them terminate problem customers. This is not intended so much to catch your home server, but so that if a small business tries to power their rack of servers on the thing, there is grounds for termination.

That said, let me address the bandwidth for a moment. Google is promising 1 gigabit symmetrical, and they're delivering that over GPON. I believe I've heard the split Google will use is 1:32 (32 customers per node), but I can't confirm that. GPON supports, per node, a shared speed of roughly 2.5 Gbps down and 1.25 Gbps up. For a typical residential scenario, that's enough that people aren't going to have speed concerns, but throw an enterprise on there with a rack of servers and things get iffy.

A home user isn't going to max out a gigabit upstream all day long, but a business could easily do that 24/7. Suddenly, the other 31 users on the node have only 250 megabit of shared bandwidth available (although in practice a second customer would see about 600ish). There's not enough bandwidth to go around with GPON for large businesses to be sharing it with residential users; enterprises should be on dedicate fibre.

There's a wrinkle here, though. Typically you don't deliver 1 Gbps on GPON because there's not a lot of bandwidth go go around. You would want at least 10GPON for that, but 10GPON isn't really seen in the real world yet. If you throw a gigabit connection at every customer, it gets really easy to saturate the entire node's upstream capacity with BitTorrent or something. It doesn't take many users running BitTorrent on gigabit connections to saturate that total of 1.25 Gbps...

For this reason, we may see Google being more aggressive with the no-servers clause than residential ISPs typically are.



»en.wikinoticia.com/Technology/in···s-161-km

We follow with interest every step you take Google's new experimental fiber network that is unfolding in Kansas City. On this occasion, one of its leaders explains how each household connected individually to the Google Fiber Huts, which unlike GPON networks such as Telefonica can offer 1 Gbps symmetrical.

John Toccalino, project manager, explains that being installed in various parts of the city a few huts or nodes called Google Fiber Huts. Inside house the OLT equipment that connect the pairs of fiber, which then hung from utility poles, reach every home. For its explanation, we understand that Google is not using a GPON network like the one in Spain is installing Telefónica.

Google does reach each individual fiber from Google Hut Fiber to the home. The main advantage is that each line is independent and can use their full capacity for a single user. The disadvantage is that a deployment of this type is more expensive than the displays in a tree, as used by Telefonica, in which each fiber coming from the OLT is divided into several stages into sub-segments by splitters, so that all Users are both the same optical signal, but each uses it only for the fraction of time allocated to it.

With this architecture, the network of Google not only provides 1 Gbps to each user, but this is symmetrical, which would be impossible in a GPON deployment, having to share all the users upload rate up to 1, 25 Gbps.

xenophon

join:2007-09-17
reply to Guspaz

Yeah, I could see Google limit the number of concurrent uplink connections that would be reasonable enough for personal use. They'll probably have to either limit bandwidth or # of concurrent uplink connections in the end. It would be too easy to abuse the service. For marketing purposes they are saying 1Gbit unlimited and not many would understand concurrent uplink connection limits so they could likely get away limiting the latter w/out taking a PR hit.