Mike, I will forward to the requisite group for a look. Have you brought this to our attention previously? I don't see anything. If you did, please forward me the ticket numbers or message(s) (peering@ is best) so wee can track down and see if someone already has it in queue.
Jared alluded to fasttcp a few emails ago. Astute man. Best, Martin Hannigan AS 20940 // AS 32787 > On Sep 21, 2016, at 14:30, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Jdm0dOBf81kSnXEvVfI6ZJbWFNt5AbYUV8CDxGwLSm8/edit?usp=sharing > > > I have made the anonymized answers public. This will obviously have some bias > to it given that I mostly know fixed wireless operators, but I'm hoping this > gets some good distribution to catch more platforms. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > The Brothers WISP > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> > To: "NANOG" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 9:08:55 AM > Subject: Re: CDN Overload? > > https://goo.gl/forms/LvgFRsMdNdI8E9HF3 > > I have made this into a Google Form to make it easier to track compared to > randomly formatted responses on multiple mailing lists, Facebook Groups, etc. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > The Brothers WISP > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> > To: "NANOG" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 12:34:48 PM > Subject: CDN Overload? > > > I participate on a few other mailing lists focused on eyeball networks. For a > couple years I've been hearing complaints from this CDN or that CDN was > behaving badly. It's been severely ramping up the past few months. There have > been some wild allegations, but I would like to develop a bit more > standardized evidence collection. Initially LimeLight was the only culprit, > but recently it has been Microsoft as well. I'm not sure if there have been > any others. > > The principal complaint is that upstream of whatever is doing the rate > limiting for a given customer there is significantly more capacity being > utilized than the customer has purchased. This could happen briefly as TCP > adjusts to the capacity limitation, but in some situations this has persisted > for days at a time. I'll list out a few situations as best as I can recall > them. Some of these may even be merges of a couple situations. The point is > to show the general issue and develop a better process for collecting what > exactly is happening at the time and how to address it. > > One situation had approximately 45 megabit/s of capacity being used up by a > customer that had a 1.5 megabit/s plan. All other traffic normally held > itself within the 1.5 megabit/s, but this particular CDN sent excessively > more for extended periods of time. > > An often occurrence has someone with a single digit megabit/s limitation > consuming 2x - 3x more than their plan on the other side of the rate limiter. > > Last month on my own network I saw someone with 2x - 3x being consumed > upstream and they had *190* connections downloading said data from Microsoft. > > The past week or two I've been hearing of people only having a single > connection downloading at more than their plan rate. > > > These situations effectively shut out all other Internet traffic to that > customer or even portion of the network for low capacity NLOS areas. It's a > DoS caused by downloads. What happened to the days of MS BITS and you didn't > even notice the download happening? A lot of these guys think that the CDNs > are just a pile of dicks looking to ruin everyone's day and I'm certain that > there are at least a couple people at each CDN that aren't that way. ;-) > > > > > Lots of rambling, sure. What do I need to have these guys collect as evidence > of a problem and who should they send it to? > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > The Brothers WISP > > >
