That is a good answer Sam. I am a firm believer in bandwidth caps, but I also limit the PPS to 100 at the head end of my network. This has made my world so much nicer to live in! I haven't suffered a single DDOS attack (that affected my network) on one sub in two years. I used to have to watch the traffic like a hawk.
Makes me want to say "Thanks Butch" for that config in my Image Stream router!! Mac > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:mikrotik- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow > Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 9:24 PM > To: Mikrotik discussions > Subject: Re: [Mikrotik] bittorrents > > Robert Andrews wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Filesharing is an example of an application type that is different > than > > most other usage. What I mean is that most applications that use > the > > Net are direct usage. Somebody requests something and it gets > > delivered, be it a web page or a HD movie. BitTorrent is a server > > application. And it should be billed as such. Most of the bad > usage > > of BitTorrent is from it delivering traffic to other users. Most > people > > are going to distort the normal usage by becoming application > servers. > > So we say no bittorrent or other PtP because they aren't paying to > be a > > Server. we charge people 5x what they normally pay to be a server. > > It's the only fair way to be to those that aren't abusing the > bandwidth > > available. The other argument against PtP is that the vast majority > of > > content delivered over it is illegal and that represents a huge > > liability to our business. A recent study at a major university > looked > > at the content on most bittorrent servers and 90% was copyrighted and > > should not be distributed that way. We explain that to most > customers > > and the agree that being charged a price to deal with that liability > > would not be worth it. > > > > ISPs fall under common carrior protection when it comes to passing > copyrighted material across their network. This has been held up in > court several times. > > If 90% of the traffic is illegal that means that 10% is legit and you > have just blocked those paying customers who have done nothing wrong > and > are trying to use a service that they paid you good moeny for. Again, > if the issue is your network can't handle the PPS find a way to limit > PPS, if you can't handle the bandwidth implement bandwidth caps. > > Sam Tetherow > Sandhills Wireless > > > > > > > On 02/14/2010 02:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > >>> Here is the struggle I face with this type of argument. If 20% of > your > >> customers are using 90% of your bandwidth, aren't you really > overcharging > >> the other 80% if you are going to gripe about the 20%? > >> > >> I think you mean undercharging the 80%? Maybe, but my smallest > advertised > >> price is 45/mo. This has done a great job of keeping those bottom > dollar > >> customers away (those great Friday night calls saying my Internet is > slow I > >> can't get my Netflix shows in high def in less then a second so I > want a > >> refund kind of thing). > >> > >> I keep seeing PPS being a limiting factor - what equipment is > everyone using > >> hitting this barrier? > >> > >> As far as word of mouth, I agree that you don't simply want to axe > them and > >> be done with it. This is why I suggest talking and communicating. > My > >> dial-up provider called me complaining I was on nearly 24/7 on my > unlimited > >> service so they simply asked me to not be connected when I wasn't > using it. > >> I simply checked dial on demand and made both of us happy. > >> > >>> First it gives you a leg to stand on when the customer complains to > you or > >> the authorities, if we ever get saddled with net neutrality rules > with > >> teeth. > >> > >> I believe we're all private companies. Right to refuse service to > anyone > >> for any reason. At this point there is no law against blocking > certain > >> traffic, is there? > >> > >> Josh Luthman > >> Office: 937-552-2340 > >> Direct: 937-552-2343 > >> 1100 Wayne St > >> Suite 1337 > >> Troy, OH 45373 > >> > >> "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to > continue > >> that counts." > >> --- Winston Churchill > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Sam Tetherow <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Here is the struggle I face with this type of argument. If 20% of > your > >>> customers are using 90% of your bandwidth, aren't you really > overcharging > >>> the other 80% if you are going to gripe about the 20%? > >>> > >>> Another thing to consider, at least for me, is that almost all of > my > >>> successful advertising is word of mouth. Now, how much of that > good word of > >>> mouth advertising comes from the 20% I would have just axed vs the > 80% that > >>> are apparently overpaying for their bandwidth? > >>> > >>> As far as the 'ban hammer' I don't think banning torrent traffic is > the way > >>> to go (or any application for that matter). If torrent traffic is > causing > >>> problems on your network it is not because it is a torrent, it is > because it > >>> presents certain type of traffic characteristics, such as high > packet rate, > >>> excessive bandwidth usage, excessive upstream usage. > >>> > >>> What needs to be addressed is the characteristic that is causing > the > >>> problem. First it gives you a leg to stand on when the customer > complains > >>> to you or the authorities, if we ever get saddled with net > neutrality rules > >>> with teeth. And secondly it fixes the actual problem as oppose to > just > >>> removing a symptom. All that has to happen is encrypting the > torrent > >>> traffic and you won't be able to track it and the problem is back; > or > >>> another application comes along which exhibits the same > characteristics. > >>> > >>> Sam Tetherow > >>> Sandhills Wireless > >>> > >>> > >>> Josh Luthman wrote: > >>> > >>>> The way I see it is if 20% of your customers use 90% of your cost, > >>>> removing 20% of your revenue is worth dropping costs to 10%. > >>>> > >>>> On 2/14/10, Butch Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 23:30 -0500, Josh Luthman wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> It doesn't make sense to simply disallow it - offer a bandwidth > plan > >>>>>> that makes you both happy. If you can't resolve it then he has > >>>>>> another ISP. Let them deal with the problem. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If he pays for 1 meg and does it all the time we both know > that's the > >>>>>> kind of customer that kills your profit and therefor your > business. > >>>>>> You and I are WISPs to make money and serve the area - this > can't be > >>>>>> done when someone is paying 25/mo and ruining it for everyone. > >>>>>> > >>>>> There are ways to accomplish the "best of both worlds" here. My > new QOS > >>>>> approach allows you to permit the traffic, even if you limit it's > impact > >>>>> by setting a speed limit, and still allow good speeds for other > users. > >>>>> One thing that you cannot fix with QOS is the reality that > torrents are > >>>>> very high packet rates (usually) and (also usually) not very high > >>>>> bandwidth per connection. My approach, still, is to allow it, > but set > >>>>> limits on it's impact on the network. Give it a small amount of > >>>>> bandwidth that is shared by other users with the same type of > network > >>>>> utilization and let them have at it. All in all, though, I agree > with > >>>>> Josh. The 5-10% of abusers (most cases, it's not even that many) > are > >>>>> not worth what they pay. However, it will get to a point where > that > >>>>> number goes to 20-30% when certain services (like the streaming > video) > >>>>> become more popular. When that happens, it's not a good business > >>>>> decision to simply drop the traffic and lose 20% of your > business. > >>>>> Thinking of these things makes me happy I'm no longer an ISP. I > really > >>>>> do think that you'll find that the QOS system I've developed will > be > >>>>> very helpful, though. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> > ******************************************************************** > >>>>> * Butch Evans * Professional Network > Consultation* > >>>>> * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering > * > >>>>> * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks > * > >>>>> * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! > * > >>>>> > ******************************************************************** > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Mikrotik mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik > >>>>> > >>>>> Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to > Mikrotik > >>>>> RouterOS > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Mikrotik mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik > >>> > >>> Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik > >>> RouterOS > >>> > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: > <http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20100214/f7a5 > e6aa/attachment.html> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Mikrotik mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik > >> > >> Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik > RouterOS > >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLeH//AAoJEO0qoUuK0uZgtokH/0/+Jqpn8CQdtxRz0AuIKUF5 > > /8hPsbPaVN5oOSXHVV3ffPxreGGdI00z8WJazodo7870e+9IsUFZcT/sruaa4KeU > > nLnAi2MLjjSctklSdz5707sWnGgIUcfn5OTd9KvPDKt+W8q+QAp9Ed8r+U8P9k+y > > kFysvUyASE0PEUleP/Qqib6S4czBXdD8rD/15aUKS5W6JEbwk4Lfmnt9Dg9Bnip0 > > QyDMb+D1SXebx8CRz3ueuLGMouompR+hdM6ADc086R32d7onF19r3KN+7tbqhrld > > IgOvFtt5H9wXa5Vb1HnEPKyR2VQr4TsYua3DnkdrUKry8nm7zpa6yDhjlhr3274= > > =a3SA > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > > Mikrotik mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik > > > > Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik > RouterOS > > _______________________________________________ > Mikrotik mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik > > Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik > RouterOS > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2681 - Release Date: > 02/14/10 19:35:00 _______________________________________________ Mikrotik mailing list [email protected] http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik RouterOS
