I would pay $40k just on the support aspect alone, easily. Keeping good support is one of the things that gives small ISPs an edge over the larger providers. That's a huge service and market differentiator. The shaping aspect is just a bonus. CGNAT is also very useful in the "ipv4 is expensive" age when you get those damn copyright notices. On Jul 12, 2016 11:32 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh, I know I "can" do alot, until some politician says I cant. and thats > all in flux.In a granular review I cant treat limelignt any different than > any other CDN, ever. so in this particular scenario there is already a > risk. we wont know until after november what the "open internet" even is, > and its up for debate for every four year until its no longer an executive > branch decision (ie equivalent to free cellphone votes) > eventually it will be clear, but right now, in this instance, its so grey, > its illegal > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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. >> > > > > -- > 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. >
