Consider a better analogy from the provider side: A customer bakes a
nice beautiful fruit cake for their Aunt Eddie in wilds of
Saskatchewan. The cake is 10 kg - but they want to make sure it gets
to Eddie properly, so they wrap it in foil, then bubble wrap, then put
it in a box. They
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Namens Joe Greco
Verzonden: Friday, October 31, 2014 12:02 PM
Aan: Rafael Possamai
CC: keith tokash; nanog@nanog.org
Onderwerp: Re: Industry standard bandwidth guarantee?
...
A silly example would be this: you fill your
And if you look at it from the provider's prospective, they have lots of
customers who want 12 gallons of gas worth of driving time, but only
want to pay for 11 gallons (or worse, went to gasspeedtest.net and it
showed their purchased gas only gave them 10 gallons worth of driving time).
That *is* a silly example.
A more proper analogy would be that you buy 12 gallons of gas, but the
station only deposits 11 gallons in your tank because the pumps are operated
by gasoline engines and they feel it is fine to count the number of gallons
pulled out of their tank instead of the
-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Sorrels
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 16:14
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Industry standard bandwidth guarantee?
And if you look at it from the provider's prospective, they have lots of
customers who want 12 gallons of gas worth
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Sorrels
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 16:14
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Industry standard bandwidth guarantee?
And if you look at it from the provider's prospective, they have lots of
customers who want 12
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Bacon, Ricky (RJ)
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 11:50 AM
To: David Hofstee; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Industry standard bandwidth guarantee?
That *is* a silly example.
A more proper analogy would be that you buy 12
+1 on this exactly what we do, keeps the calls down.
Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com
On 10/31/14, 9:56 AM, Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.net wrote:
If you're
For access side (home users) we have slightly over provisioned there
circuits, to minimize the I¹m paying for 20 why am I getting 19 type of
calls. Provision them out to 25 they get 23-24 on there speedtest
everyone is happy.
Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:24:46 -0700, keith tokash said:
Is there an industry standard regarding how much bandwidth an inter-carrier
circuit should guarantee?
And where your PoPs are (and how many) matters as well - if you have a peering
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Ben Sjoberg bensjob...@gmail.com wrote:
That 3Mb difference is probably just packet overhead + congestion
Yes... however, that's actually an industry standard of implying
higher performance than reality, because end users don't care about
the datagram overhead
If memory serves me right, keith tokash wrote:
I'm sorry I should have been more specific. I'm referring to the
*percentage* of a circuit's bandwidth. For example if you order a
20Mb site to site circuit and iperf shows 17Mb. Well ... that's 15%
off, which sounds hefty, but I'm not sure
On Oct 30, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Ben Sjoberg bensjob...@gmail.com wrote:
That 3Mb difference is probably just packet overhead + congestion
Yes... however, that's actually an industry standard of implying
higher
You can't just ignore protocol overhead (or any system's overhead). If an
application requires X bits per second of actual payload, then your system
should be designed properly and take into account overhead, as well as
failure rates, peak utilization hours, etc. This is valid for networking,
Hi,
and this industry would
perhaps be better off if we called a link that can deliver at best 17
Megabits of Goodput reliably a 15 Megabit goodput +5 service
instead of calling it a 20 Megabit service
But you don't know what the user is going to do over the link. If the average
packet
2014 13:21:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Industry standard bandwidth guarantee?
To: mysi...@gmail.com
CC: bensjob...@gmail.com; ktok...@hotmail.com; nanog@nanog.org
You can't just ignore protocol overhead (or any system's overhead). If an
application requires X bits per second of actual payload, then your
You can't just ignore protocol overhead (or any system's overhead). If an
application requires X bits per second of actual payload, then your system
should be designed properly and take into account overhead, as well as
failure rates, peak utilization hours, etc. This is valid for networking,
Useable data over a link depends on packet size.
56 byte IP packets at X Mbps
1500 byte IP packets at Y Mbps
This is then comparable across link technologies and framings used
on those technologies.
You can then compare a DSL vs GPON vs Cable as provided by the ISP
using Apples
Yes, and no.
If you are a given a limited resource (in this case, a physical port that
can process no more than 1gbps for example) and your efficiency in
transferring data over that port is not 100%, the provider itself is not to
blame. Each and every protocol has limitations, and in this case we
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:24:46 -0700, keith tokash said:
Is there an industry standard regarding how much bandwidth an inter-carrier
circuit should guarantee?
How are you going to come up with a standard that covers both the uplink from
Billy-Bob's Bait, Fish, Tackle, and Wifi, where a
expectations, I'm wondering if there's a threshold that industry
movers/shakers generally yell at their vendor for going below, and try to get a
refund or move the link to a new port/box.
To: ktok...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Industry standard bandwidth guarantee?
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Date
a threshold that
industry movers/shakers generally yell at their vendor for going below, and
try to get a refund or move the link to a new port/box.
To: ktok...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Industry standard bandwidth guarantee?
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:02:53 -0400
movers/shakers generally yell at their vendor for going below, and try to get
a refund or move the link to a new port/box.
To: ktok...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Industry standard bandwidth guarantee?
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:02:53 -0400
CC: nanog@nanog.org
On 30 October 2014 08:04, Ben Sjoberg bensjob...@gmail.com wrote:
That 3Mb difference is probably just packet overhead + congestion
control. Goodput on a single TCP flow is always less than link
bandwidth, regardless of the link.
I've always found it useful to refer to this:
24 matches
Mail list logo
