Is your headend a shack? :)

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote:
> I wish they made a box that didn't need a data center environment.  Not
> looking forward to putting in an outdoor enclosure with HVAC.
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Josh Reynolds
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:17 PM
>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CDN overload
>
> 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.
>
>
>

Reply via email to