Don't have a decently sized tower hut there with HVAC?
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > Tower. > > -----Original Message----- From: Josh Reynolds > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 10:15 AM > > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CDN overload > > 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. >> >> >> >> > >
