Slight correction, you can virtually do whatever you want, you just can't really block "legal" things, and have to make a good excuse for "reasonable network management" if you do.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: > "limited viability of procera boxes in the open internet era" > > You are terribly misinformed. > > You can do whatever you want, you just have to put it in some fine > print somewhere. You also can't discriminate and limit a specific > service provider. For instance, you can't shape netflix and not hulu, > but if you wanted to limit each subscriber to "6Mbps Steaming Video", > there's no problem with that. > > Procera boxes are INCREDIBLY useful, and not just for traffic shaping. > They also make excellent CGNAT boxes, can help substantially with > DoS/DDoS detection and DoS assistance mechanisms, and give you > excellent DPI into subscriber usage. Knowing what's in use on your > network per subscriber is also substantially helpful when trying to > help a customer with an issue. > > support: "You're using all of your bandwidth" > > customer: "No I'm not, the kids are in bed and we're not using the > wifi" (they all call it "the wifi" it seems like) > > support: "I see 15Mbps of Steam updates going on right now" > > customer: "BRB lemmie shut of my son's computer" > > *waits for customer speedtest* > > customer: "Hey that looks great, thank you VERY MUCH!" > > support: "No problem sir/maam. Glad we could help!" > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:44 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm > <[email protected]> wrote: >> sounded to me like this is a single IP (tcp/udp) connection saturation >> scenario, without a serious L7 filter in play its gonna do what its gonna >> do. Powercode for example (historically, not sure about now without procera) >> only applied the cap on new ip connections, established maintained whatever >> it was originally. so if you started an unbroken stream at a 12mb burst, >> that stream always hung out at 12mb, if your sustained was 3mb, new streams >> were limited to 3mb aggregate, but the 12mb stream prevailed as long as it >> was never considered "new". even when powercode was useful with the >> throttling controls, before they threw away their primary benefit in the >> bandwidth control area to sell their soul to procera with the real time >> throttles they took away. with the limited viability of procera boxes in the >> open internet era, I can see where this would be a cluster f**k post 12k >> investment. >> >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The policer at the network edge can be much more aggressive than a >>> "policer" on an embedded customer network device, and this prevents >>> that "15Mbps for a 900MHz customer" bandwidth from transitioning >>> across your backhauls / backbone... per customer. >>> >>> Procera and other similar solutions can help, yes. >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > How does it eliminate the problem, unless you use something like a >>> > Procera >>> > to selectively apply policing to the CDN stream, leaving the customer >>> > some >>> > bandwidth for other traffic? >>> > >>> > From: Josh Reynolds >>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:22 PM >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CDN overload >>> > >>> > >>> > Shaping/policing at the head end eliminates this problem, and clears up >>> > your >>> > backbone. >>> > >>> > On Jul 12, 2016 7:06 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> When this happens it basically wipes out that customer’s Internet >>> >> except >>> >> for the CDN download, no matter where you do the rate limiting. >>> >> Customer of >>> >> course assumes their ISP just sucks. With a lot of education, you can >>> >> convince most of them it is actually an aggressive application hogging >>> >> their >>> >> entire pipe and pushing all the other applications aside. So I have >>> >> customers that whenever their VPN to work stops working, they yell >>> >> upstairs >>> >> at their kid didn’t I tell you to do your Xbox downloads after I go to >>> >> bed? >>> >> >>> >> One view is this isn’t a problem, customer uses bad application, feels >>> >> pain, learns not to do that. But everyone tells them it is always the >>> >> ISP’s >>> >> fault. And people with fat pipes like 50 or 100 Mbps cable Internet >>> >> probably don’t experience this problem, which reinforces the idea that >>> >> it’s >>> >> the ISP’s fault. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> From: Darin Steffl >>> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 5:42 PM >>> >> To: [email protected] >>> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CDN overload >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Why aren't you rate limiting at the core closer to your upstream? Keep >>> >> the >>> >> traffic off your last mile and wireless backhaul network if you can >>> >> help it. >>> >> >>> >> Works much better to throttle at the core instead of CPE. >>> >> >>> >> Sent from my smartphone. Please excuse any typos. >>> >> >>> >> On Jul 12, 2016 5:13 PM, "George Skorup" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I have had it with these CDNs sending more traffic than the last mile >>> >>> can >>> >>> handle. Got a customer at 1.5Mbps on 900 FSK and they're sending to >>> >>> her at >>> >>> 15Mbps. Of course the AP reports RF downlink overloaded. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as >> part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
