how-to block ads
|
knightmb
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·Comcast
 ·Vonage
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to justbits
Re: "legal content"
said by justbits  :How will they tell the difference between legal and illegal content? Let me offer this info as an ISP independent of the "big" ones. As a small ISP, I get to chat with a lot of customers. What's the number one thing they want to do? It's either watch streaming video, games, or P2P.
How do we handle all of that?
First, anyone that wants to do P2P need only let us know and we will open up a custom port just for them so they can get maximum p2p speeds. The advantage of this is that we know exactly where all of the p2p traffic is going and can traffic shape it so that during non-peak times it's "all you can eat" and during peak times they get scaled back to allow the casual web surfers and e-mail users do their daily routine without much interruption.
Second, streaming video, is another traffic shaping option where we see that people are dropping either (cable/satellite) because they can almost watch all of their favorite shows online now. Not online as in, piracy, but as in from the official websites to their favorite channels. I know of two customers that dropped their cable TV because they could watch all the same shows online with less or no commercials. It's very easy to get your PC/laptop hooked right into your TV, so that's one reason for those situations.
Third, games. Online games don't require a lot of bandwidth (compared to everything else), not talking about game files or anything, but the real-time data that games use (usually almost all UDP based), it's another simple traffic shaping rule that small UDP packets get higher priority to avoid interruption during congestion.
Finally, our traffic shaping isn't delay based, it's pipe based. So what that means is, all things being equal, we only traffic shape the pipe speed of the user based on what they are doing. That means if we only had 54 mbps available to 100 customers, traffic shaping only affects the throughput of the user, not the latency or delay/dropped packets, etc. So if 1 user was (in theory, we don't offer 54 mbps service  ) using all 54 mbps for his p2p application and Joe Average wanted to go check the latest sport scores at cnn.com, then Joe Average gets an equal cut of bandwidth only up to what they actually use. So if 53 Joe Average all wanted to check a website at exactly the same time, then in theory that would 1 Mbps per user. So what about the p2p guy? Well, his p2p is traffic shaped on pipe, so it's not that connections would start dropping or getting hacked reset packets, it would only mean his throughput pipe would be reduced to either 1 Mbps or less until the others were finished. The pipe encompasses *all* of his connections on the p2p, so this eliminates the problem of "p2p user open so many connections, they hog all the bandwidth" issue that other types of traffic shaping hardware has when going state based instead of pipe based. The best way to look at it is weight based shaping. The higher the "weight", the more bandwidth it gets during "crunch" times and the less "weight" it has, the less bandwidth it gets during "crunch" times. But the overall benefit is, you don't have to hack up everyone's packets and try to figure out if packet A should get there faster than Packet B. You just send everything as fast as you can and when crunch times hits (link saturation as we call it), then start looking at what the user is doing and merely tell the packets something like "Packet A is for P2P, Packet B is for Blah.com; so Packet B you go ahead and Packet A, you go ahead too, but just a smaller size until Packet B is done, then go ahead at full size"
Yeah, I think I went a bit over the technical side, but my point is that the software/hardware to make P2P users life easier as compared to the network as a whole is very easy to set up and use if the bigger companies would just take the time to do it.
Oh yeah, all the software is free too since it's open source, go figure.  | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| That was a very cool post! Don't apologize for being too technical -- this is DSLReports, not Romper Room. If they can't keep up technically, then they should do what everybody does when they don't understand -- ask (or feign understanding).
So I'm going to ask. 
Does your plan work with streaming P2P models like Vuze, BitTorrent, or Pando currently use? Or is it a matter of how the user sets up his client?
What is the OSS that you use to do the "pipe based" shaping?
Are you a WISP?
Thanks again -- great input! I miss the DSLReports of old where a lot of the talk was like that!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON
| reply to knightmb
That's what I have been saying the big ISPs should do for a long time. QOS the torrents and whatever else to low priority so other traffic doesn't get held up. I do this at home and can download full speed from nntp with 8 simultaneous connections and when http comes along, even downloading a huge file over http, nntp goes to basically zero until http is done. It took me a little bit to figure it all out but it's working great on the WRT54GL that I bought. | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR | I'm fine with that suggestion as long as the USERS (actually, their apps) decide what packets to give the lower priority markings to. Then Comcast can obey those markings (RFC2474). | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by funchords :I'm fine with that suggestion as long as the USERS (actually, their apps) decide what packets to give the lower priority markings to. Then Comcast can obey those markings (RFC2474). Way too open to abuse. What if someone decides to mark torrent traffic with a tag used for VOIP? | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit:
May 25th, @02:39PM
| said by patcat88 :said by funchords :I'm fine with that suggestion as long as the USERS (actually, their apps) decide what packets to give the lower priority markings to. Then Comcast can obey those markings (RFC2474). Way too open to abuse. What if someone decides to mark torrent traffic with a tag used for VOIP? You don't tag by "type" (torrent, VOIP) but by priority (Expedited, Assured, Normal). But your observation and question is still a valid one.
If someone wants to tag their torrents Expedited, that's their business but it's easily solved and its covered in the RFC2474.
ISPs simply need to allocate a certain number of bytes/hr. (or percentage, or per day or however they want to dice it up) as the quota for priority handling, then when that quota gets reached, everything on that account gets the default "best-effort" normal handling.
Some torrent traffic is being watched "in real time" like a streaming video (BitTorrent, Vuze, Pando, and Podcasting are all services that do this). So users would want to tag this kind of download higher than normal background file transfers (but probably not as high as VOIP).
G711 = consumes 90 kbps or around 40MB per hour. So if there was a limit of 200MB of Expedited Forwarding a day, you could talk on the phone for 5 hours without ever hitting the limit. You wouldn't be torrenting very long before you hit that limit. Either way, once the limit is hit, you're not cut off -- you're just not "expedited" anymore.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| QOSing is the right solution. All spare bandwidth left over after all higher priority is used up should be available for torrenting. I should definetly be able to get my line maxed out at 3 AM in the morning.
But no ISPs are respectfull enough to do it. »broadband.mpi-sws.mpg.de/transpa···results/
RSTs flow equally at all times of the day. | |
-
|
