New Comcast Throttling System From Sandvine?New 'protocol agnostic' solution simply software update for existing hardware... 09:32AM Monday Aug 25 2008 by Karl Bodetags: Fileswapping · hardware · bandwidth · networkingSandvine Corporation, whose traffic shaping hardware sits at the heart of the Comcast P2P throttling controversy, was considered one of the tech-sector's hottest companies just last year. But the network neutrality fight, credit crunch and slowed earnings have beaten down the company's stock. With Comcast moving to a "protocol agnostic" solution (aka caps and over-use fees), is Sandvine's future in doubt? Probably not. They've already developed a new "protocol agnostic" software update for the exiting hardware: Introduced in May, FairShare, which can be added to existing Sandvine deployments via software, "is oriented toward identifying the sources of congestion in a non-application-specific way, and applies policies to address that congestion to ensure fair use and fair access to network resources by a broad mix of users," Donnelly explains. That obviously sounds very similar to the new system Comcast is testing called "fair share" that will throttle excessive users back to "DSL like speeds" for between ten and twenty minutes.
Related:- P2P Filters Not Ready For Prime Time
- Beating Comcast's Sandvine On Linux With Iptables
- Bypass Bell Canada's Throttling
- How To Tether The 3G iPhone
- Building a Better P2P
- Friday Morning Links
- Monday Morning Links
- Cablevision Network DVR: 160GB, $10/Month
|
 
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs: | Stupid... I wonder how much bandwidth could have been added to the network with the cost of these boxes? | |
|  | 
hairspring
join:2007-11-23
Oakville, ON | Re: Stupid... Obviously not as much as these boxes save. ISP's are all about money. If it didn't make financial sense, they wouldn't be doing it. | |
| | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Stupid... said by hairspring  :Obviously not as much as these boxes save. ISP's are all about money. If it didn't make financial sense, they wouldn't be doing it. Yeah. after all those yacht payments aren't cheap. can't be letting the yachts go to hell by spending money on network upgrades.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| | | 
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | Re: Comcast presented details on protocol agnostic plans Interesting.....
Slide 13 really caught my eye as the mention competing services as real-time apps, and will "attempt" to not affect them. | |
| | 
avd706
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Great Neck, NY | these slides These slides deserve a topic to themselves | |
| | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
edit:
August 25th, @10:32AM
| Re: these slides said by avd706 :These slides deserve a topic to themselves Comcast also keeps updating info on this topic at this web page:
»www.comcast.net/terms/network/
Especially check out the section of this page with downloads of presentations made on the topic in PDF format.
Also check out links about "traffic optimization" that the IETF is evaluating here:
Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Birds of a Feather (BoF) meetings. Comcast is participating in IETF 72.
»www3.tools.ietf.org/agenda/72/alto.html
And there is a multi-page discussion of Comcast's new technique of throttling here at BBR:
»[Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols | |
| | | | 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey | Re: these slides This is very common sense what comcast is doing rather then messing with protocols. Throttling connections down temporarily is the answer, to bandwidth hogs. Voip, etc should always be protected. Eventually comcast gets it. | |
| | | | 
jlivingood
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
| said by TK Junk Mail :Also check out links about "traffic optimization" that the IETF is evaluating here: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Birds of a Feather (BoF) meetings. Comcast is participating in IETF 72. » www3.tools.ietf.org/agenda/72/alto.html There were two good relevant BoFs at IETF 72 a few weeks ago. One was ALTO, as you noted. That did not become a working group yet - there will be a 2nd BoF. ALTO is focused on how to standardize P4P-style optimizations of P2P, such as P4P iTrackers. I'd expect some good content at IETF 73 at the ALTO BoF. The agenda from the 72nd meeting is at »www3.tools.ietf.org/agenda/72/alto.html and you will note we contributed to the requirements document at »www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/dra···s-00.txt .
The other relevant BoF was TANA, see agenda at »www3.tools.ietf.org/agenda/72/tana.html, where we presented (see »downloads.comcast.net/docs/IETF%···cast.pdf). TANA is expected to become an official working group before the 73rd meeting. This is very focused on congestion notification mechanisms, as well as bulk data classes.
JL | |
| | deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
·Cox HSI
| Too bad It's too bad they can't just be honest. They should just admit that they are doing this because they desire more control over their networks due to all of the impending competition.
Network congestion is a made up problem that they are using to hide their true intentions. P2P and Piracy are the 2 boogeymen that they use to scare us and try and reinforce their position on controlling "Network Congestion". | |
| AstroBoy
join:2008-08-08
Parkville, MD | Will the new system Throttle or forge packets? Will the new system Throttle or forge packets? | |
| | 
espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Will the new system Throttle or forge packets? said by AstroBoy :Will the new system Throttle or forge packets? No. | |
| kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Palmdale, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
 ·Dreamhost
·Charter Pipeline
| isn't tiered speeds enough? I don't understand why this is even an issue for the ISP's, because as it is, we're not using the full speed potential of our modems, so what's the worry? If we purchase a 10/1 tier, or a 5/384 tier, or even a 15/2 tier, we're already being limited by our level of service we pay for, so shouldn't that be enough? If ISP's no longer want to provide speed upgrades, which they use to not mind doing, then hell open the line wide up, and let us experience the full potential of our cable/DSL lines when not congested, and throttle back when we truly are. If they're obsessed with throttling even with speed limits already set, it makes no sense! If you get a T1 line, you know you're going to get 1.5/1.5Mbit/sec, so if you're getting a specific speed tier, that's what you should get, regardless of what protocol you may be using! If ISP's must throttle, they better tel you to what speeds, and for how long, but like I said, we're already throttled in a sense based on what package we get, so why can't that be enough? | |
| | Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL | Re: isn't tiered speeds enough? Some times you need to have a DSL limit set lower then plan level as the line can't hit the full speed with out going out. | |
| | Kiwi
Premium
join:2003-05-26
USA
·Comcast
·Aristotle Internet
| Because in America people have been spoiled. I'm not taking up for ISP's who work around rather than act up front (Doing what they claim the customer is doing).
But, they do sell speed, they don't sell bulk bandwidth usage. This would never have happened if the mighty few had curbed abuse of residential lines. Normal 'Joe' is probably going to use 1-10G a month; not 300G.
There are two culprits in this scenario, Cable and customers and only one has control. | |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | "Fair share" huh sounds alot like FAP to me. | |
| | | |
|
|
Comcast presented details on protocol agnostic plans
·
·