RE: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Frank Bulk]

The wikipedia article is simplified to the extent that it doesn't embed
actual practices.  Those are best obtained at SCTE meetings and discussion
with CMTS vendors.

A 10x oversubscription rate from residential broadband access doesn't seem
too unreasonable to me based in practice and what I've heard, but perhaps
other operators have differing opinions or experiences.

The '250' is really 250 subscribers in my case, but you're right, you see
different figures bandied about in regards to homes passed and penetration.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:07 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...


On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:

> Except that upstreams are not at 27 Mbps
> (http://i.cmpnet.com/commsdesign/csd/2002/jun02/imedia-fig1.gif show that
> you would be using 32 QAM at 6.4 MHz).  The majority of MSOs are at 16-QAM
> at 3.2 MHz, which is about 10 Mbps.  We just took over two systems that
were
> at QPSK at 3.2 Mbps, which is about 5 Mbps.

Ok, so the wikipedia article <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docsis> is
heavily simplified? Any chance someone with good knowledge of this could
update the page to be more accurate?

> And upstreams are usually sized not to be more than 250 users per upstream
> port.  So that would be a 10:1 oversubscription on upstream, not too bad,
by
> my reckoning.  The 1000 you are thinking of is probably 1000 users per
> downstream power, and there is a usually a 1:4 to 1:6 ratio of downstream
to
> upstream ports.

250 users sharing 10 megabit/s would mean 40 kilobit/s average utilization
which to me seems very tight. Or is this "250 apartments" meaning perhaps
40% subscribe to the service indicating that those "250" really are 100
and that the average utilization then can be 100 kilobit/s upstream?

With these figures I can really see why companies using HFC/Coax have a
problem with P2P, the technical implementation is not really suited for
the application.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:


Except that upstreams are not at 27 Mbps
(http://i.cmpnet.com/commsdesign/csd/2002/jun02/imedia-fig1.gif show that
you would be using 32 QAM at 6.4 MHz).  The majority of MSOs are at 16-QAM
at 3.2 MHz, which is about 10 Mbps.  We just took over two systems that were
at QPSK at 3.2 Mbps, which is about 5 Mbps.


Ok, so the wikipedia article  is 
heavily simplified? Any chance someone with good knowledge of this could 
update the page to be more accurate?



And upstreams are usually sized not to be more than 250 users per upstream
port.  So that would be a 10:1 oversubscription on upstream, not too bad, by
my reckoning.  The 1000 you are thinking of is probably 1000 users per
downstream power, and there is a usually a 1:4 to 1:6 ratio of downstream to
upstream ports.


250 users sharing 10 megabit/s would mean 40 kilobit/s average utilization 
which to me seems very tight. Or is this "250 apartments" meaning perhaps 
40% subscribe to the service indicating that those "250" really are 100 
and that the average utilization then can be 100 kilobit/s upstream?


With these figures I can really see why companies using HFC/Coax have a 
problem with P2P, the technical implementation is not really suited for 
the application.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Michael Painter]

- Original Message - 
From: "Joe Greco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


[snip]


As long as you fairly disclose to your end-users what limitations and
restrictions exist on your network, I don't see the problem.


You've set out a qualification that generally doesn't exist.  For example,
this discussion included someone from a WISP, Amplex, I believe, that
listed certain conditions of use on their web site, and yet it seems like
they're un{willing,able} (not assigning blame/fault/etc here) to deliver
that level of service, and using their inability as a way to justify
possibly rate shaping P2P traffic above and beyond what they indicate on
their own documents.

In some cases, we do have people burying T&C in lengthy T&C documents,
such as some of the 3G cellular providers who advertise "Unlimited
Internet(*)" data cards, but then have a slew of (*) items that are
restricted - but only if you dig into the fine print on Page 3 of the
T&C.  I'd much prefer that the advertising be honest and up front, and
that ISP's not be allowed to advertise "unlimited" service if they are
going to place limits, particularly significant limits, on the service.

... JG



Yep.

"In the US, Internet access is still generally sold as all-you-can-eat, with few restrictions on the types of services or 
applications that can be run across the network (except for wireless, of course), but things are different across the 
pond.  In the UK, ISP plus.net doesn't even offer "unlimited" packages, and they explain why on their web site.
'Most providers claiming to offer unlimited broadband will have a fair use policy to try and prevent people over-using 
their service," they write. "But if it's supposed to be unlimited, why should you use it fairly? The fair use policy stops 
you using your unlimited broadband in an unlimited fashion-so, by our reckoning, it's not unlimited. We don't believe in 
selling 'unlimited broadband' that's bound by a fair use policy. We'd rather be upfront with you and give you clear usage 
allowances, with FREE overnight usage.' "


The above (and there's much more) from:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/Deep-packet-inspection-meets-net-neutrality.ars/

If I was a WISP, I'd be saving up for that DPI box.

--Michael

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Mark Radabaugh]

Joe Greco wrote:
As long as you fairly disclose to your end-users what limitations and 
restrictions exist on your network, I don't see the problem.



You've set out a qualification that generally doesn't exist.  For example,
this discussion included someone from a WISP, Amplex, I believe, that 
listed certain conditions of use on their web site, and yet it seems like

they're un{willing,able} (not assigning blame/fault/etc here) to deliver
that level of service, and using their inability as a way to justify
possibly rate shaping P2P traffic above and beyond what they indicate on 
their own documents.
  
Actually you misrepresent what I said versus what you said.   It's 
getting a little old.



I responded to the original question by Deepak Jain over why anyone 
cared about P2P traffic rather then just using a hard limit with the 
reasons why a Wireless ISP would want to shape P2P traffic.



You then took it upon yourself to post sections of our website to Nanog 
and claim that your service was much superior because you happen to run 
Metro Ethernet.  



Our website pretty clearly spells out our practices and they are MUCH 
more transparent than any other provider I know of.Can we do EXACTLY 
what we say on our website if EVERY client wants to run P2P at the full 
upload rate?  No - but we can do it for the ones who care at this 
point.At the moment the only people who seem to care about this are 
holier than thou network engineers and content providers looking for 
ways to avoid their own distribution costs.   Neither one of them is 
paying me a dime.



Mark

RE: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Frank Bulk]

Except that upstreams are not at 27 Mbps
(http://i.cmpnet.com/commsdesign/csd/2002/jun02/imedia-fig1.gif show that
you would be using 32 QAM at 6.4 MHz).  The majority of MSOs are at 16-QAM
at 3.2 MHz, which is about 10 Mbps.  We just took over two systems that were
at QPSK at 3.2 Mbps, which is about 5 Mbps.

And upstreams are usually sized not to be more than 250 users per upstream
port.  So that would be a 10:1 oversubscription on upstream, not too bad, by
my reckoning.  The 1000 you are thinking of is probably 1000 users per
downstream power, and there is a usually a 1:4 to 1:6 ratio of downstream to
upstream ports.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:41 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...


On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:

> I'm not aware of MSOs configuring their upstreams to attain rates for 9
and
> 27 Mbps for version 1 and 2, respectively.  The numbers you quote are the
> theoretical max, not the deployed values.

But with 1000 users on a segment, don't these share the 27 megabit/s for
v2, even though they are configured to only be able to use 384kilobit/s
peak individually?

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:


I'm not aware of MSOs configuring their upstreams to attain rates for 9 and
27 Mbps for version 1 and 2, respectively.  The numbers you quote are the
theoretical max, not the deployed values.


But with 1000 users on a segment, don't these share the 27 megabit/s for 
v2, even though they are configured to only be able to use 384kilobit/s 
peak individually?


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Frank Bulk]

I'm not aware of MSOs configuring their upstreams to attain rates for 9 and
27 Mbps for version 1 and 2, respectively.  The numbers you quote are the
theoretical max, not the deployed values.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:27 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...


On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Brandon Galbraith wrote:

> I think no matter what happens, it's going to be very interesting as
Comcast
> rolls out DOCSIS 3.0 (with speeds around 100-150Mbps possible), Verizon
FIOS

Well, according to wikipedia DOCSIS 3.0 gives 108 megabit/s upstream as
opposed to 27 and 9 megabit/s for v2 and v1 respectively. That's not what
I would call revolution as I still guess hundreds if not thousands of
subscribers share those 108 megabit/s, right? Yes, fourfold increase but
... that's still only factor 4.

> expands it's offering (currently, you can get 50Mb/s down and 30Mb/sec
up),
> etc. If things are really as fragile as some have been saying, then the
> bottlenecks will slowly make themselves apparent.

Upstream capacity will still be scarce on shared media as far as I can
see.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Rod Beck]

I have reached the conclusion that some of these threads are good indicators of 
the degree of underemployment among our esteemed members. But don't worry, I am 
not a snitch. 

Roderick S. Beck
Director of European Sales
Hibernia Atlantic
1, Passage du Chantier, 75012 Paris
http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com
Wireless: 1-212-444-8829. 
Landline: 33-1-4346-3209.
French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97.
AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' Albert 
Einstein. 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Martin Hannigan
Sent: Tue 1/15/2008 9:25 PM
To: Joe Greco
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
 

On Jan 15, 2008 3:52 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joe Greco wrote:
> > > I have no idea what the networking equivalent of thirty-seven half-eaten
> > > bags of Cheetos is, can't even begin to imagine what the virtual 
> > > equivalent
> > > of my couch is, etc.  Your metaphor doesn't really make any sense to me,
> > > sorry.
> >
> > There isn't one. The "fat man" metaphor was getting increasingly silly,
> > I just wanted to get it over with.
>
> Actually, it was doing pretty well up 'til near the end. \

Not really, it's been pretty far out there for more than a few posts
and was completely dead when "farting and burping" was used in an
analogy.


-M<

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Martin Hannigan]

On Jan 15, 2008 3:52 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joe Greco wrote:
> > > I have no idea what the networking equivalent of thirty-seven half-eaten
> > > bags of Cheetos is, can't even begin to imagine what the virtual 
> > > equivalent
> > > of my couch is, etc.  Your metaphor doesn't really make any sense to me,
> > > sorry.
> >
> > There isn't one. The "fat man" metaphor was getting increasingly silly,
> > I just wanted to get it over with.
>
> Actually, it was doing pretty well up 'til near the end. \

Not really, it's been pretty far out there for more than a few posts
and was completely dead when "farting and burping" was used in an
analogy.


-M<

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Joe Greco]

> Joe Greco wrote:
> > I have no idea what the networking equivalent of thirty-seven half-eaten
> > bags of Cheetos is, can't even begin to imagine what the virtual equivalent
> > of my couch is, etc.  Your metaphor doesn't really make any sense to me,
> > sorry.
> 
> There isn't one. The "fat man" metaphor was getting increasingly silly, 
> I just wanted to get it over with.

Actually, it was doing pretty well up 'til near the end.  Most of the
amusing stuff was [off-list.]  The interesting conclusion to it was that
obesity is a growing problem in the US, and that the economics of an AYCE
buffet are changing - mostly for the owner.

> > Interestingly enough, we do have a pizza-and-play place a mile or two
> > from the house, you pay one fee to get in, then quarters (or cards or
> > whatever) to play games - but they have repeatedly answered that they
> > are absolutely and positively fine with you coming in for lunch, and 
> > staying through supper.  And we have a "discount" card, which they used
> > to give out to local businesspeople for "business lunches", on top of it.
> 
> That's not the best metaphor either, because they're making money off 
> the games, not the buffet. (Seriously, visit one of 'em, the food isn't 
> very good, and clearly isn't the real draw.) 

True for Chuck E Cheese, but not universally so.  I really doubt that
Stonefire is expecting the people who they give their $5.95 business
lunch card to to go play games.  Their pizza used to taste like cardboard
(bland), but they're much better now.  The facility as a whole is designed
to address the family, and adults can go get some Asian or Italian pasta,
go to the sports theme area that plays ESPN, and only tangentially notice
the game area on the way out.  The toddler play areas (<8yr) are even free.

http://www.whitehutchinson.com/leisure/stonefirepizza.shtml

This is falling fairly far from topicality for NANOG, but there is a
certain aspect here which is exceedingly relevant - that businesses
continue to change and innovate in order to meet customer demand.

> I suppose you could market 
> Internet connectivity this way - unlimited access to HTTP and POP3, and 
> ten free SMTP transactions per month, then you pay extra for each 
> protocol. That'd be an awfully tough sell, though.

Possibly.  :-)

> >> As long as you fairly disclose to your end-users what limitations and 
> >> restrictions exist on your network, I don't see the problem.
> > 
> > You've set out a qualification that generally doesn't exist.
> 
> I can only speak for my network, of course. Mine is a small WISP, and we 
> have the same basic policy as Amplex, from whence this thread 
> originated. Our contracts have relatively clear and large (at least by 
> the standards of a contract) "no p2p" disclaimers, in addition to the 
> standard "no traffic that causes network problems" clause that many of 
> us have. The installers are trained to explicitly mention this, along 
> with other no-brainer clauses like "don't spam."

Actually, that's a difference, that wasn't what [EMAIL PROTECTED] was talking
about.  Amplex web site said they would rate limit you down to the minimum 
promised rate.  That's disclosed, which would be fine, except that it
apparently isn't what they are looking to do, because their oversubscription
rate is still too high to deliver on their promises.

> When we're setting up software on their computers (like their email 
> client), we'll look for obvious signs of trouble ahead. If a customer 
> already has a bunch of p2p software installed, we'll let them know they 
> can't use it, under pain of "find a new ISP."
> 
> We don't tell our customers they can have unlimited access to do 
> whatever the heck they want. The technical distinctions only matter to a 
> few customers, and they're generally the problem customers that we don't 
> want anyway.

There is certainly some truth to that.  Getting rid of the unprofitable
customers is one way to keep things good.  However, you may find yourself
getting rid of some customers who merely want to make sure that their ISP
isn't going to interfere at some future date.  

> To try to make this slightly more relevant, is it a good idea, either 
> technically or legally, to mandate some sort of standard for this? I'm 
> thinking something like the "Nutrition Facts" information that appears 
> on most packaged foods in the States, that ISPs put on their Web sites 
> and advertisements. I'm willing to disclose that we block certain ports 
> for our end-users unless they request otherwise, and that we rate-limit 
> certain types of traffic. 

ABSOLUTELY.  We would certainly seem more responsible, as providers, 
if we disclosed what we were providing.

> I can see this sort of thing getting confusing 
> and messy for everyone, with little or no benefit to anyone. Thoughts?

It certainly can get confusing and messy.

It's a little annoying to help someone go shopping for broadband and then
have to dig out the dirt

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Barry Shein]

This is amazing. People are discovering oversubscription.

When we put the very first six 2400bps modems for the public on the
internet in 1989 and someone shortly thereafter got a busy signal and
called support the issue was oversubscription. What? You mean you
don't have one modem and phone line for each customer???

Shortly thereafter the fuss was dial-up ISPs selling "unlimited"
dial-up accounts for $20/mo and then knocking people off if they were
idle to accomodate oversubscription. But as busy signals mounted it
wasn't just idle, it was "on too long" or "unlimited means 200 hours
per month" until attornies-general began weighing in.

And here it is over 18 years later and people are still debating
oversubscription.

Not what to do about it, that's fine, but seem to be discovering
oversubscription de novo.

Wow.

It reminds me of back when I taught college and I'd start my first
Sept lecture with a puzzled look at the audience and "didn't I explain
all this *last* year?"

But at least they'd laugh.

Hint: You're not getting a dedicated megabit between chicago and
johannesburg for $20/month. Get over it.

HOWEVER, debating how to deal with the policies to accomodate
oversubscription is reasonable (tho perhaps not on this list) because
that's a moving target.

But here we are a week later on this thread (not to mention nearly 20
years) and people are still explaining oversubscription to each other?

Did I accidentally stumble into Special Nanog?

-- 
-Barry Shein

The World  | [EMAIL PROTECTED]   | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Login: Nationwide
Software Tool & Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[David E. Smith]

Joe Greco wrote:


I have no idea what the networking equivalent of thirty-seven half-eaten
bags of Cheetos is, can't even begin to imagine what the virtual equivalent
of my couch is, etc.  Your metaphor doesn't really make any sense to me,
sorry.


There isn't one. The "fat man" metaphor was getting increasingly silly, 
I just wanted to get it over with.




Interestingly enough, we do have a pizza-and-play place a mile or two
from the house, you pay one fee to get in, then quarters (or cards or
whatever) to play games - but they have repeatedly answered that they
are absolutely and positively fine with you coming in for lunch, and 
staying through supper.  And we have a "discount" card, which they used

to give out to local businesspeople for "business lunches", on top of it.


That's not the best metaphor either, because they're making money off 
the games, not the buffet. (Seriously, visit one of 'em, the food isn't 
very good, and clearly isn't the real draw.) I suppose you could market 
Internet connectivity this way - unlimited access to HTTP and POP3, and 
ten free SMTP transactions per month, then you pay extra for each 
protocol. That'd be an awfully tough sell, though.



As long as you fairly disclose to your end-users what limitations and 
restrictions exist on your network, I don't see the problem.


You've set out a qualification that generally doesn't exist.


I can only speak for my network, of course. Mine is a small WISP, and we 
have the same basic policy as Amplex, from whence this thread 
originated. Our contracts have relatively clear and large (at least by 
the standards of a contract) "no p2p" disclaimers, in addition to the 
standard "no traffic that causes network problems" clause that many of 
us have. The installers are trained to explicitly mention this, along 
with other no-brainer clauses like "don't spam."


When we're setting up software on their computers (like their email 
client), we'll look for obvious signs of trouble ahead. If a customer 
already has a bunch of p2p software installed, we'll let them know they 
can't use it, under pain of "find a new ISP."


We don't tell our customers they can have unlimited access to do 
whatever the heck they want. The technical distinctions only matter to a 
few customers, and they're generally the problem customers that we don't 
want anyway.


To try to make this slightly more relevant, is it a good idea, either 
technically or legally, to mandate some sort of standard for this? I'm 
thinking something like the "Nutrition Facts" information that appears 
on most packaged foods in the States, that ISPs put on their Web sites 
and advertisements. I'm willing to disclose that we block certain ports 
for our end-users unless they request otherwise, and that we rate-limit 
certain types of traffic. I can see this sort of thing getting confusing 
and messy for everyone, with little or no benefit to anyone. Thoughts?


David Smith
MVN.net

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Joe Greco]

> Joe Greco wrote:
> > Time to stop selling the "always on" connections, then, I guess, because
> > it is "always on" - not P2P - which is the fat man never leaving.  P2P
> > is merely the fat man eating a lot while he's there.
> 
> As long as we're keeping up this metaphor, P2P is the fat man who says 
> he's gonna get a job real soon but dude life is just SO HARD and crashes 
> on your couch for three weeks until eventually you threaten to get the 
> cops involved because he won't leave. Then you have to clean up 
> thirty-seven half-eaten bags of Cheetos.

I have no idea what the networking equivalent of thirty-seven half-eaten
bags of Cheetos is, can't even begin to imagine what the virtual equivalent
of my couch is, etc.  Your metaphor doesn't really make any sense to me,
sorry.

Interestingly enough, we do have a pizza-and-play place a mile or two
from the house, you pay one fee to get in, then quarters (or cards or
whatever) to play games - but they have repeatedly answered that they
are absolutely and positively fine with you coming in for lunch, and 
staying through supper.  And we have a "discount" card, which they used
to give out to local businesspeople for "business lunches", on top of it.

> Every network has limitations, and I don't think I've ever seen a 
> network that makes every single end-user happy with everything all the 
> time. You could pipe 100Mbps full-duplex to everyone's door, and someone 
> would still complain because they don't have gigabit access to lemonparty.

Certainly.  There will be gigabit in the future, but it isn't here (in
the US) just yet.  That has very little to do with the deceptiveness
inherent in selling something when you don't intend to actually provide
what you advertised.

> Whether those are limitations of the technology you chose, limitations 
> in your budget, policy restrictions, whatever.
> 
> As long as you fairly disclose to your end-users what limitations and 
> restrictions exist on your network, I don't see the problem.

You've set out a qualification that generally doesn't exist.  For example,
this discussion included someone from a WISP, Amplex, I believe, that 
listed certain conditions of use on their web site, and yet it seems like
they're un{willing,able} (not assigning blame/fault/etc here) to deliver
that level of service, and using their inability as a way to justify
possibly rate shaping P2P traffic above and beyond what they indicate on 
their own documents.

In some cases, we do have people burying T&C in lengthy T&C documents,
such as some of the 3G cellular providers who advertise "Unlimited
Internet(*)" data cards, but then have a slew of (*) items that are
restricted - but only if you dig into the fine print on Page 3 of the
T&C.  I'd much prefer that the advertising be honest and up front, and
that ISP's not be allowed to advertise "unlimited" service if they are
going to place limits, particularly significant limits, on the service.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

RE: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Geo.]

> As long as we're keeping up this metaphor, P2P is the fat man who says

Guys, according to wikipedia over 70 million people fileshare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_file_sharing

That's not the fat man, that's a significant portion of the market.

Demand is changing, meet the new needs or die at the hands of your
customers. It's not like you have a choice.

The equipment makers need to recognize that it's no longer a one size fits
all world (where download is the most critical) but instead that the
hardware needs to adjust the available bandwidth to accomodate the direction
data is flowing at that particular moment. Hopefully some of them monitor
this list and are getting ideas for the next generation of equipment.

George Roettger
Netlink Services

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[David E. Smith]

Joe Greco wrote:


Time to stop selling the "always on" connections, then, I guess, because
it is "always on" - not P2P - which is the fat man never leaving.  P2P
is merely the fat man eating a lot while he's there.


As long as we're keeping up this metaphor, P2P is the fat man who says 
he's gonna get a job real soon but dude life is just SO HARD and crashes 
on your couch for three weeks until eventually you threaten to get the 
cops involved because he won't leave. Then you have to clean up 
thirty-seven half-eaten bags of Cheetos.


Every network has limitations, and I don't think I've ever seen a 
network that makes every single end-user happy with everything all the 
time. You could pipe 100Mbps full-duplex to everyone's door, and someone 
would still complain because they don't have gigabit access to lemonparty.


Whether those are limitations of the technology you chose, limitations 
in your budget, policy restrictions, whatever.


As long as you fairly disclose to your end-users what limitations and 
restrictions exist on your network, I don't see the problem.


David Smith
MVN.net

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Joe Greco]

> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:43:12 -0500
> "William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > So users who rarely use their connection are more profitable to the ISP.
> > >
> > > The fat man isn't a welcome sight to the owner of the AYCE buffet.
> > 
> > Joe,
> > 
> > The fat man is quite welcome at the buffet, especially if he brings
> > friends and tips well.
> 
> But the fat man isn't allowed to take up residence in the restaurant
> and continously eat - he's only allowed to be there in bursts, like we
> used to be able to assume people would use networks they're connected
> to. "Left running" P2P is the fat man never leaving and never stopping
> eating.

Time to stop selling the "always on" connections, then, I guess, because
it is "always on" - not P2P - which is the fat man never leaving.  P2P
is merely the fat man eating a lot while he's there.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Mark Smith]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:56:30 +0900
Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008, Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> > But the fat man isn't allowed to take up residence in the restaurant
> > and continously eat - he's only allowed to be there in bursts, like we
> > used to be able to assume people would use networks they're connected
> > to. "Left running" P2P is the fat man never leaving and never stopping
> > eating.
> 
> ffs, stop with the crappy analogies.
> 

They're accurate. No network, including the POTS, or the road
networks you drive your car on, are built to handle 100% concurrent use
by all devices that can access it. Data networks (for many, many years)
have been built on the assumption that the majority of attached devices
will only occasionally use it.

If you want to _guaranteed_ bandwidth to your house, 24x7, ask your
telco for the actual pricing for guaranteed Mbps - and you'll find that
the price per Mbps is around an order of magnitude higher than what
your residential or SOHO broadband Mbps is priced at. That because for
sustained load, the network costs are typically an order of magnitude
higher.

> The internet is like a badly designed commodity network. Built increasingly
> cheaper to deal with market pressures and unable to shift quickly to shifting
> technologies.
> 

That's because an absolute and fundamental design assumption is
changing - P2P changes the traffic profile from occasional bursty
traffic to a constant load. I'd be happy to build a network that can
sustain high throughput P2P from all attached devices concurrently - it
isn't hard - but it's costly in bandwidth and equipment. I'm not
against the idea of P2P a lot, because it distributes load for popular
content around the network, rather than creating "the slashdot effect".
It's the customers that are the problem - they won't pay $1000 per/Mbit
per month I'd need to be able to do it...

TCP is partly to blame. It attempts to suck up as much bandwidth as
available. That's great if you're attached to a network who's usage is
bursty, because if the network is idle, you get to use all it's
available capacity, and get the best network performance possible.
However, if your TCP is competing with everybody else's TCP, and you're
expecting "idle network" TCP performance - you'd better pony up money
for more total network bandwidth, or lower your throughput expectations.

Regards,
Mark.

-- 

"Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
 alert."
   - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Brandon Galbraith wrote:


I think no matter what happens, it's going to be very interesting as Comcast
rolls out DOCSIS 3.0 (with speeds around 100-150Mbps possible), Verizon FIOS


Well, according to wikipedia DOCSIS 3.0 gives 108 megabit/s upstream as 
opposed to 27 and 9 megabit/s for v2 and v1 respectively. That's not what 
I would call revolution as I still guess hundreds if not thousands of 
subscribers share those 108 megabit/s, right? Yes, fourfold increase but 
... that's still only factor 4.



expands it's offering (currently, you can get 50Mb/s down and 30Mb/sec up),
etc. If things are really as fragile as some have been saying, then the
bottlenecks will slowly make themselves apparent.


Upstream capacity will still be scarce on shared media as far as I can 
see.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Brandon Galbraith]

On 1/15/08, Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> ffs, stop with the crappy analogies.
>
> The internet is like a badly designed commodity network. Built
> increasingly
> cheaper to deal with market pressures and unable to shift quickly to
> shifting
> technologies.
>
> Just like the telcos I recall everyone blasting when I was last actually
> involved in networks bigger than a university campus.
>
> Adrian
>
>
I think no matter what happens, it's going to be very interesting as Comcast
rolls out DOCSIS 3.0 (with speeds around 100-150Mbps possible), Verizon FIOS
expands it's offering (currently, you can get 50Mb/s down and 30Mb/sec up),
etc. If things are really as fragile as some have been saying, then the
bottlenecks will slowly make themselves apparent.

-brandon

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Adrian Chadd]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2008, Mark Smith wrote:

> But the fat man isn't allowed to take up residence in the restaurant
> and continously eat - he's only allowed to be there in bursts, like we
> used to be able to assume people would use networks they're connected
> to. "Left running" P2P is the fat man never leaving and never stopping
> eating.

ffs, stop with the crappy analogies.

The internet is like a badly designed commodity network. Built increasingly
cheaper to deal with market pressures and unable to shift quickly to shifting
technologies.

Just like the telcos I recall everyone blasting when I was last actually
involved in networks bigger than a university campus.



Adrian

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Mark Smith]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:43:12 -0500
"William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> On Jan 14, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So users who rarely use their connection are more profitable to the ISP.
> >
> > The fat man isn't a welcome sight to the owner of the AYCE buffet.
> 
> Joe,
> 
> The fat man is quite welcome at the buffet, especially if he brings
> friends and tips well.

But the fat man isn't allowed to take up residence in the restaurant
and continously eat - he's only allowed to be there in bursts, like we
used to be able to assume people would use networks they're connected
to. "Left running" P2P is the fat man never leaving and never stopping
eating.

Regards,
Mark.

-- 

"Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
 alert."
   - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Matt Palmer]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:43:12PM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So users who rarely use their connection are more profitable to the ISP.
> >
> > The fat man isn't a welcome sight to the owner of the AYCE buffet.
> 
> The fat man is quite welcome at the buffet, especially if he brings
> friends and tips well. That's the buffet's target market: folks who
> aren't satisfied with a smaller portion.
> 
> The unwelcome guy is the smelly slob who spills half his food,
> complains, spends most of 4 hours occupying the table yelling into a
> cell phone (with food still in his mouth and in a foreign language to
> boot), burps, farts, leaves no tip and generally makes the restaurant
> an unpleasant place for anyone else to be.

However, if the sign on the door said "burping and farting welcome" and
"please don't tip your server", things are a bit different.  Similar
comparisons to use of the word "unlimited" apply.

> > What exactly does this imply, though, from a networking point of view?
> 
> That the unpleasant nuisance who degrades everyone else's service and
> bothers the staff gets encouraged to leave.

Until it is generally considered common courtesy (and recognised as such
in a future edition of "Miss Manners' Guide To The Intertubes") to not
download heavily for fear of upsetting your virtual neighbours, it's
reasonable that not specifically informing people that their "unpleasant"
behaviour is unwelcome should imply that such behaviour is acceptable.

- Matt

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[William Herrin]

On Jan 14, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So users who rarely use their connection are more profitable to the ISP.
>
> The fat man isn't a welcome sight to the owner of the AYCE buffet.

Joe,

The fat man is quite welcome at the buffet, especially if he brings
friends and tips well. That's the buffet's target market: folks who
aren't satisfied with a smaller portion.

The unwelcome guy is the smelly slob who spills half his food,
complains, spends most of 4 hours occupying the table yelling into a
cell phone (with food still in his mouth and in a foreign language to
boot), burps, farts, leaves no tip and generally makes the restaurant
an unpleasant place for anyone else to be.


> What exactly does this imply, though, from a networking point of view?

That the unpleasant nuisance who degrades everyone else's service and
bothers the staff gets encouraged to leave.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3005 Crane Dr.Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Joe Greco]

> From my experience, the Internet IP Transit Bandwidth costs ISP's a lot
> more than the margins made on Broadband lines.
> 
> So users who rarely use their connection are more profitable to the ISP.

The fat man isn't a welcome sight to the owner of the AYCE buffet.

What exactly does this imply, though, from a networking point of view?

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

[Bailey Stephen]

>From my experience, the Internet IP Transit Bandwidth costs ISP's a lot
more than the margins made on Broadband lines.

So users who rarely use their connection are more profitable to the ISP.

We used the Cisco Service Control Engine (SCE) to throttle P2P
bandwidth.

Stephen Bailey
IS Network Services - FUJITSU 


Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered
Office 22 Baker Street, London, W1U 3BW

This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient.  Its contents
are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged.  Fujitsu
Services does not guarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted
and amended or that it is virus-free.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: 14 January 2008 17:22
To: nanog list
Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...


On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:

> In other words, you're denying the reality that people download a 3 to
4 
> times more than they upload and penalizing every in trying to attain a

> 1:1 ratio.

That might be your reality.

My reality is that people with 8/1 ADSL download twice as much as they 
upload, people with 10/10 upload twice as much as they download.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]