The other thing that really sucks about this is the SM is almost unmanageable with the VC being so overloaded. In this condition, you can use the AP LUID proxy to get into the SM just fine, but that's not really what I care about, dropped SNMP to/from the SM is the bigger issue. I suppose you could use the AP's SNMP proxy, but then you'd have to know the LUID, which changes on reboot, and is just not optimal. I wonder if Cambium can go back to prioritizing management in a future release. My memory is foggy, but I think this was hurting HP traffic a long, long time ago.

On 4/28/2015 8:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
Thanks for all the information about this that everyone shared, I now know that I'm not crazy. Although it sounds like we may have this as more of a problem in the future....


Kurt Fankhauser

Wavelinc Communications

P.O. Box 126

Bucyrus, OH 44820

http://www.wavelinc.com <http://www.wavelinc.com/>

tel. 419-562-6405

fax. 419-617-0110


On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    I’ve spotted exactly as George describes, torch at our border
    router sees way more traffic than I see at the SM or the
    customer’s router.
    I think one time I traced it to a Limelight Networks IP, but I
    didn’t write it down so I’m relying on memory so I could well be
    wrong.
    *From:* George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) <mailto:[email protected]>
    *Sent:* Monday, April 27, 2015 10:29 AM
    *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working..
    Yeah, it's almost always streaming video. Except the one guy I
    found running the "download manager" on his PC was doing USENET
    crap, probably porn, movies, music, etc.

    It's fairly easy to see what's going on. For instance, a customer
    is on 6x1 Canopy. There's 6Mbps RF downlink and 12Mbps Rx at AP's
    ethernet interface. This is all fine and dandy with Canopy because
    the AP controls the downlink traffic and doesn't put more on it
    than the QoS allows. Like Kurt, the first time I saw this, I was
    running the MT torch tool and thought the Canopy QoS was broken, too.

    Now, for UBNT or really anything else where the CPE does the
    limiting, the AP is sending all that traffic to the CPE. So now
    you have to resort to policing at an upstream router which I'd
    rather not do to keep the load off of the little MT routers. Even
    still, after you do that, all that extra traffic is still coming
    in on the backhaul, so all you've done is moved the problem, which
    helps relieve the AP stress, but it still sucks to have to take on
    double the traffic. You can move the limiting all the way to your
    border(s), but that extra traffic is still taking up bandwidth
    somewhere.

    On 4/27/2015 9:48 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
    I haven’t been following this thread closely, but has anyone
    identified the traffic?
    *From:* Ken Hohhof <mailto:[email protected]>
    *Sent:* Monday, April 27, 2015 8:46 AM
    *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working..
    If we could get Procera to create a signature for this type of
    behavior, then we could create a rule to restrict this traffic to
some percentage less than 50% of the subscriber’s speed tier. This would perhaps have several desirable results:
    - if the CDN algorithm aims to oversubscribe the customer’s pipe
    by 2X, then making the pipe look 0.5X as small should counteract that
    - I would actually set it lower than 50%, the objective to have
    the customer say “XYZ service sucks” and complain to them or stop
    using them, rather than “my Internet sucks”
    - if we can pool our information about who is doing this (not
    just the CDN but the content provider paying them), we could
    complain directly to them, and if necessary take the position
    that blocking or throttling their traffic would be reasonable
    network management and allowable under net neutrality rules,
    since they are in effect attacking our network with a flood of
    traffic beyond what the customer has subscribed to
    Another approach would be to rate limit this traffic with a queue
    that has a very large buffer, introducing latency rather than
    packet loss, hoping that their algorithm recognizes late ACKs as
    a sign of congestion and will back off the sending rate. But when
    I asked Simon about buffer size in Procera, my understanding was
    that it’s more of a traffic policing box than a shaping box.
    *From:* Wireless Admin <mailto:[email protected]>
    *Sent:* Monday, April 27, 2015 9:08 AM
    *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working..

    Ken,

    Your assessment of the problem is exactly correct.  I was going
    to compare it tor DoS as you did here.  I don’t see an easy fix
    for this.

    Steve

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    *From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
    *Sent:* Monday, April 27, 2015 10:00 AM
    *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working..

    I don’t think you’re understanding the situation that we are
    speculating is happening.

    He is using Cambium QoS.  However, he is seeing twice that amount
    of traffic destined to the customer, the SM is throwing half of
    it away (as it should), and as a result the customer’s service sucks.

    The problem is that the sender is not observing traditional
    congestion control, it is not backing off the sending rate when
    it sees high packet loss.

    That’s why I say it is similar to a DoS attack, someone sending
    far more traffic than the subscriber can receive.

    *From:*David Milholen <mailto:[email protected]>

    *Sent:*Monday, April 27, 2015 7:05 AM

    *To:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

    *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working..

    This is why we like setting the QOS at the subscriber. If I
    remember the cambium burst allocation ignores tcp and udp and
    work strictly on a token bit system.
    We do not receive these complaints. The only time I hear them is
    if we get overloaded at the backhaul link.

    On 4/26/2015 8:58 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

    I think George forgot the sarcasm emoticon.

    Also note that the problem here is the edge provider is sending
    more than the customer’s plan rate, ignoring TCP congestion
    control.  Not only does this consume Internet bandwidth over and
    above what the customer has subscribed to, it makes anything
    else the customer is trying to do on the Internet unusable
    because normal TCP is unusable with 50% packet loss.  It is not
    surprising the customer calls saying his Internet is slow.

    There’s a saying that comes to mind, involving a 5 pound bag.

    *From:*Faisal Imtiaz <mailto:[email protected]>

    *Sent:*Sunday, April 26, 2015 8:37 PM

    *To:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

    *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working..

    I see that the net neutrality is going to be the next boogieman
    under the bed for WISP's from now on...

    Please, please, please, correct your understanding on
    Net-Neutrality...

    It allows for one to traffic shape any and all kinds of traffic,
    as long as :-

       a) You declare your practice on your website.

       b) You DON"T DO IT specific to A SPECIFIC Network.. i.e. all
    VOIP, or all Video, or ALL Streaming..

         (applying a throttle on video to netflix while allowing
    Hulu would be considered a violation, but applying throttle to
    all types of video content is NOT !)

    :)

    Faisal Imtiaz
    Snappy Internet & Telecom
    7266 SW 48 Street
    Miami, FL 33155
    Tel: 305 663 5518 <tel:305%20663%205518> x 232

    Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <tel:%28305%29663-5518> Option 2 or
    Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        *From: *"George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)"
        mailto:[email protected]
        *To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
        *Sent: *Sunday, April 26, 2015 7:12:13 PM
        *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not
        working..

        So you'd be purposely slowing down or blocking legitimate
        traffic from an edge provider to the customer? Oh no, net
        neutrality violation!

        So when everyone starts with the 4k streaming and we're
        selling the customer 20Mbps, then we have to take on 40Mbps
        because of this!?

        On 4/26/2015 5:58 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

            I could justify declaring such traffic an attack and
            blocking the source as malicious.

            *From:*George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)
            <mailto:[email protected]>

            *Sent:*Sunday, April 26, 2015 4:30 PM

            *To:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

            *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not
            working..

            Yep, I see this all the time and Ken is exactly right.
            The Canopy QoS works exactly as designed, the AP is
            definitely not delivering more than the sustained rate,
            but is instead discarding the extra 50%. I've tested
            this situation thoroughly. Stick a MT simple queue in at
            the upstream router and the 2X rate traffic stops
            hitting the AP's ethernet interface, but it's still
            coming in at double the sustained rate farther upstream.
            There's no way around it except throwing bandwidth at it.

            This is CDN traffic. And when the customer thinks they
            can install one of those "internet download managers" to
            speed up their connection. The only thing it does is
            screw with TCP acks or window sizes or something which
            just puts more traffic on your transit just to be
            discarded at the congestion point (SM, queue, Procera,
            whatever). Gotta love it.

            You'd think with 70% of the internets being streaming
            video they'd think hmm.. maybe we can cut down on the
            peering congestion by NOT doing this crap. But no.

            On 4/26/2015 11:01 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

                Sorry to answer a question with a question, but are
                you measuring at the SM, or at some upstream router?

                The reason I ask, is I have seen some CDN traffic
                that does not seem to follow traditional TCP
                congestion control.  It will send at twice the rate
                limit, causing 50% packet loss to its own traffic
                and everything else to that same subscriber.
                Evidently some TCP geniuses have decided to use
                latency rather than packet loss as the indicator of
                congestion, and that the objective is goodput not
                throughput. Works for last mile technologies like T1
                and DSL with big buffers at the head end of the
                fixed speed serial connection, not so good with the
                type of rate limit queues we tend to use unless we
                can provision the queues with big buffers.

                Probably not your problem, but I thought I’d bring
                it up just in case.

                *From:*Kurt Fankhauser <mailto:[email protected]>

                *Sent:*Sunday, April 26, 2015 10:50 AM

                *To:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

                *Subject:*[AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not
                working..

                I have a 450 SM that is rate limited in the SM to
                1500kbps download on the sustain side. I noticed
                last night that this customer was pulling a steady
                almost 3mbps download for several hours on end. How
                is this possible? Is there a problem with 13.2
                firmware? Its a 3.65ghz SM.

                see attached.



                Kurt Fankhauser

                Wavelinc Communications

                P.O. Box126

                Bucyrus, OH 44820

                http://www.wavelinc.com <http://www.wavelinc.com/>

                tel. 419-562-6405 <tel:419-562-6405>

                fax. 419-617-0110 <tel:419-617-0110>

--



Reply via email to