Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Pengxiong Zhu]

Thank you for your insights. We are not so familiar with interconnect and
peering, we will ask you some questions for clarification first. Hope you
don't mind. :-)

When there is a tri-opoly, with no opportunity of competition, its easily
> possible to set prices which are very different than market conditions.

I assume the tri-opoly involves a Chinese ISP, outside ISP A, outside ISP
B. Who is competing with whom? Why its easily possible to set prices which
are very different than market conditions?


> additionally, the three don't purchase enough to cover demand for their
> own network.
>
Do you mean that the three don't purchase enough capacity for their traffic
going out of their network(China->Outside)? If this is what you mean,
however, we don't observe low speed in that direction. We assume there is
not so much traffic going out of China, comparing to the traffic coming in.
Also, why would the three purchase outbound traffic if they set their
inbound traffic artificially high? They could charge some peers less for
the outbound traffic to solve the problem.

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside


On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:58 PM Tom Paseka  wrote:

> Most of the performance hit is because of commercial actions, not
> censorship.
>
> When there is a tri-opoly, with no opportunity of competition, its easily
> possible to set prices which are very different than market conditions.
> This is what is happening here.
>
> Prices are set artificially high, so their interconnection partners wont
> purchase enough capacity. additionally, the three don't purchase enough to
> cover demand for their own network. Results in congestion.
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:49 PM Pengxiong Zhu  wrote:
>
>> You seem to be implying that you don't believe/can't see the GFW
>>
>>
>> No, that's not what I meant. I thought mandatory content filtering at the
>> border means traffic throttling at the border, deliberately or accidentally
>> rate-limiting the traffic, now
>> I think he was referring to GFW and the side effect of deep packet
>> inspection.
>>
>> In fact, we designed a small experiment to locate the hops with GFW
>> presence, and then try to match them with the bottleneck hops. We found
>> only in 34.45% of the cases, the GFW hops match the bottleneck hops.
>>
>> Best,
>> Pengxiong Zhu
>> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>> University of California, Riverside
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 1:13 PM Matt Corallo  wrote:
>>
>>> > find out direct evidence of mandatory content filtering at the border
>>>
>>> You seem to be implying that you don't believe/can't see the GFW, which
>>> seems surprising. I've personally had issues with traffic crossing it
>>> getting RST'd (luckily I was fortunate enough to cross through a GFW
>>> instance which was easy to avoid with a simple iptables DROP), but its
>>> also one of the most well-studied bits of opaque internet censorship
>>> gear in the world. I'm not sure how you could possibly miss it.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> On 3/2/20 2:55 PM, Pengxiong Zhu wrote:
>>> > Yes, we agree. The poor transnational Internet performance effectively
>>> > puts any foreign business that does not have a physical presence (i.e.,
>>> > servers) in China at a disadvantage.
>>> > The challenge is to find out direct evidence to prove mandatory content
>>> > filtering at the border, if the government is actually doing it.
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Pengxiong Zhu
>>> > Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>>> > University of California, Riverside
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:38 AM Matt Corallo >> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > It also gives local competitors a leg up by helping domestic apps
>>> > perform better simply by being hosted domestically (or making
>>> > foreign players host inside China).
>>> >
>>> >> On Mar 2, 2020, at 11:27, Ben Cannon >> >> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> 
>>> >> It’s the Government doing mandatory content filtering at the
>>> >> border.  Their hardware is either deliberately or accidentally
>>> >> poor-performing.
>>> >>
>>> >> I believe providing limited and throttled external connectivity
>>> >> may be deliberate; think of how that curtails for one thing;
>>> >> streaming video?
>>> >>
>>> >> -Ben.
>>> >>
>>> >> -Ben Cannon
>>> >> CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
>>> >> b...@6by7.net 
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Mar 1, 2020, at 9:00 PM, Pengxiong Zhu >> >>> > wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi all,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We are a group of researchers at University of California,
>>> >>> Riverside who have been working on measuring the transnational
>>> >>> network performance (and have previously asked questions on the
>>> >>> mailing list). Our work has now led to a publication in
>>> >>> Sigmetrics 2020 and we are 

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Pengxiong Zhu]

I see. Thank you!

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside


On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 9:13 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 21/Mar/20 09:09, Pengxiong Zhu wrote:
>
> How do they deliberately congest peering ports? Do you hear from those
> Chinese operators or you observe this from the traffic?
>
>
> Simple - let them run at 350% of capacity and pipeline upgrades for Lord
> knows how long :-).
>
> On a serious note, let's have a beer.
>
>
> Seems like you also think GFW is part of the cause,
>
>
> I do - each of my trips to China have questioned the role of my VPN for my
> online experience.
>
>
> however, we don't have direct evidence.
>
>
> I won't argue with you there, you did the groundwork. I'm just being
> anecdotal.
>
>
> Just curious, What is your "problems"? I thought it's congestion.
>
>
> Accessibility and penetration rates.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Mark Tinka]

On 21/Mar/20 09:09, Pengxiong Zhu wrote:

> How do they deliberately congest peering ports? Do you hear from those
> Chinese operators or you observe this from the traffic?

Simple - let them run at 350% of capacity and pipeline upgrades for Lord
knows how long :-).

On a serious note, let's have a beer.


> Seems like you also think GFW is part of the cause,

I do - each of my trips to China have questioned the role of my VPN for
my online experience.


> however, we don't have direct evidence.

I won't argue with you there, you did the groundwork. I'm just being
anecdotal.


> Just curious, What is your "problems"? I thought it's congestion.

Accessibility and penetration rates.

Mark.

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Pengxiong Zhu]

>
> I know about Chinese operators who will deliberately congest peering ports
> to influence 3rd party network behaviour.

How do they deliberately congest peering ports? Do you hear from those
Chinese operators or you observe this from the traffic?

Most countries in Africa do not implement great big firewalls. Our problems
> are quite different :-\...

Not having great big firewalls tends to help :-).
>

Seems like you also think GFW is part of the cause, however, we don't have
direct evidence. Just curious, What is your "problems"? I thought it's
congestion.

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside


On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 11:13 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 15/Mar/20 22:51, Frank Habicht wrote:
>
> >
> > thanks for the "quotes", Mark. I agree.
> >
> >
> https://www.caida.org/publications/presentations/2018/investigating_causes_congestion_african_afrinic/investigating_causes_congestion_african_afrinic.pdf
> >
> > page 23:
> > Results Overview
> > • No evidence of widespread congestion
> >- 2.2% of discovered link showed evidence of congestion at the end of
> >  our measurements campaign
> >
> > page 34:
> > Conclusions
> > • Measured IXPs were congestion-free, which promotes peering in the
> >   region
> >
> > https://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2017/papers/imc17-final182.pdf
> >
> > my conclusion: s/congestion/congestion or the lack thereof/g
> >
> > Frank Habicht
> >
> > PS: yes, i could name peers that once had inadequate links into an IXP.
> > but for how long did that happen? (yes..., any minute is too long...)
>
> Indeed.
>
> There was a time when backhaul links between ISP routers at the exchange
> point and their nearest PoP were based on E1's, wireless, e.t.c. But
> that could be said of, pretty much, every exchange point that kicked off
> inside of the last 2.5 decades.
>
> Nowadays, such links, if they exist, are the very deep exception, not
> the rule.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Ben Cannon]

oops. missed a spot.

-Ben Cannon
CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
b...@6by7.net 




> On Mar 2, 2020, at 2:36 PM, David Burns  wrote:
> 
> Did you compare CERNET with commodity networks?  (My anecdotal observations 
> from a couple years ago suggest that Internet2 to CERNET is very good when 
> other paths are poor to unusable.)
> 
> --David Burns

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Mark Tinka]

On 15/Mar/20 22:51, Frank Habicht wrote:

>
> thanks for the "quotes", Mark. I agree.
>
> https://www.caida.org/publications/presentations/2018/investigating_causes_congestion_african_afrinic/investigating_causes_congestion_african_afrinic.pdf
>
> page 23:
> Results Overview
> • No evidence of widespread congestion
>- 2.2% of discovered link showed evidence of congestion at the end of
>  our measurements campaign
>
> page 34:
> Conclusions
> • Measured IXPs were congestion-free, which promotes peering in the
>   region
>
> https://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2017/papers/imc17-final182.pdf
>
> my conclusion: s/congestion/congestion or the lack thereof/g
>
> Frank Habicht
>
> PS: yes, i could name peers that once had inadequate links into an IXP.
> but for how long did that happen? (yes..., any minute is too long...)

Indeed.

There was a time when backhaul links between ISP routers at the exchange
point and their nearest PoP were based on E1's, wireless, e.t.c. But
that could be said of, pretty much, every exchange point that kicked off
inside of the last 2.5 decades.

Nowadays, such links, if they exist, are the very deep exception, not
the rule.

Mark.

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Frank Habicht]

On 15/03/2020 13:07, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 15/Mar/20 09:55, Pengxiong Zhu wrote:
> 
>> I know Caida has one paper on the congestion on Africa's IXPs substrate.
> 
> I can't think of a single IXP in Africa that is "congested".

thanks for the "quotes", Mark. I agree.

https://www.caida.org/publications/presentations/2018/investigating_causes_congestion_african_afrinic/investigating_causes_congestion_african_afrinic.pdf

page 23:
Results Overview
• No evidence of widespread congestion
   - 2.2% of discovered link showed evidence of congestion at the end of
 our measurements campaign

page 34:
Conclusions
• Measured IXPs were congestion-free, which promotes peering in the
  region

https://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2017/papers/imc17-final182.pdf

my conclusion: s/congestion/congestion or the lack thereof/g

Frank Habicht

PS: yes, i could name peers that once had inadequate links into an IXP.
but for how long did that happen? (yes..., any minute is too long...)

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Mark Tinka]

On 15/Mar/20 09:55, Pengxiong Zhu wrote:

> I know Caida has one paper on the congestion on Africa's IXPs substrate.

I can't think of a single IXP in Africa that is "congested".

Do you have more data?


> However, we did find Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa have better
> transnational performance than China,...

Not having great big firewalls tends to help :-).


> while the performance of Ghana and Egypt was worse than China, at
> least that's what we saw from the web4africa VPSes we brought.

While I can't speak to the national backbones of Ghana and Egypt, it
would be good to obtain multiple perspectives, just to be sure.


> Sorry I am a bit confused here. What do you mean by "these networks"?
> When you say "peering outside of China", who is peering who exactly?

I know about Chinese operators who will deliberately congest peering
ports to influence 3rd party network behaviour.

Mark.

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Pengxiong Zhu]

>
> Most countries in Africa do not implement great big firewalls. Our
> problems are quite different :-\...
>

I know Caida has one paper on the congestion on Africa's IXPs substrate.
However, we did find Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa have better
transnational performance than China, while the performance of Ghana and
Egypt was worse than China, at least that's what we saw from the web4africa
VPSes we brought.

We've seen somewhat similar behaviour from these networks when peering
> outside of China
>

Sorry I am a bit confused here. What do you mean by "these networks"? When
you say "peering outside of China", who is peering who exactly?

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside


On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 12:17 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 3/Mar/20 00:57, Tom Paseka via NANOG wrote:
>
> >
> > Prices are set artificially high, so their interconnection partners
> > wont purchase enough capacity. additionally, the three don't
> > purchase enough to cover demand for their own network. Results in
> > congestion.
>
> We've seen somewhat similar behaviour from these networks when peering
> outside of China, perhaps, to influence the flow of money and traffic.
>
> We have zero patience for such things.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Matt Corallo]

Note, of course, further, that "the GFW" is not a single appliance, nor
even a standard, common appliance. There are very different "GFWs" based
on which link you're looking at, which telco it is, etc. Indeed, usually
traffic to Hong Kong is effected much less by the GFW than other links
(though still passes through *a* GFW). I've also found traffic destined
to Khabarovsk (depending on the routing) to pass through GFWs which
rarely cause issue.

Matt

On 3/3/20 1:28 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG
> mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
> 
> I can corroborate that. I visited China in August 2019 and had
> terrible internet performance to sites outside of China. This was
> both with mobile and wifi at the homes of two friends, one in
> Heilongjiang and the other in Beijing. When I visited in February
> 2015, it was much better. Both times, I was using VNC on the company
> VPN. This does not use much bandwidth, but is quite latency sensitive.
> 
> 
> GFW has some different settings that they use, similar to "ThreatCon"...
> if civil unrest is happening, its working is changed. During party
> conventions, they change it too. 
> So when a foreign visits China, that experience might be different from
> one visiting during a different time period.
> 
> Also, some hotels that only accept international guests backhaul traffic
> thru Hong Kong, providing an experience that looks much closer to
> US/Europe broadband. 
> 
> 
> Rubens
> 
>  

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG <
nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

> I can corroborate that. I visited China in August 2019 and had terrible
> internet performance to sites outside of China. This was both with mobile
> and wifi at the homes of two friends, one in Heilongjiang and the other in
> Beijing. When I visited in February 2015, it was much better. Both times, I
> was using VNC on the company VPN. This does not use much bandwidth, but is
> quite latency sensitive.
>
>
GFW has some different settings that they use, similar to "ThreatCon"... if
civil unrest is happening, its working is changed. During party
conventions, they change it too.
So when a foreign visits China, that experience might be different from one
visiting during a different time period.

Also, some hotels that only accept international guests backhaul traffic
thru Hong Kong, providing an experience that looks much closer to US/Europe
broadband.


Rubens

RE: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG]

I can corroborate that. I visited China in August 2019 and had terrible 
internet performance to sites outside of China. This was both with mobile and 
wifi at the homes of two friends, one in Heilongjiang and the other in Beijing. 
When I visited in February 2015, it was much better. Both times, I was using 
VNC on the company VPN. This does not use much bandwidth, but is quite latency 
sensitive.

-Original Message-
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2020 21:00:05 -0800
From: Pengxiong Zhu 

Hi all,

We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who
have been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and
have previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led
to a publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
interesting findings.

We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance when
accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries we
measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational
network performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some
African countries).

Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign nodes over
more than 53 days, our result shows when data transferring from foreign
nodes to China, 79% of measured connections has throughput lower than the
1Mbps, sometimes it is even much lower. The slow speed occurs only during
certain times and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion
(irrespective of network protocol and content), please see the following
figure. The diurnal pattern is fairly stable, 80% to 95% of the
transnational connections have a less than 3 hours standard deviation of
the slowdown hours each day over the entire duration. However, the speed
rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in about half an hour.


We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are incurred
in the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the end-to-end loss rate
could rise up to 40% during the slow period, with ~15% on average.

There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First of all,
all traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN, etc., which means it
is discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic. Second,
we found for 71% of connections, the bottleneck is located inside China
(the second hop after entering China or further), which means that it is
mostly unrelated to the transnational link itself (e.g., submarine cable).
Yet we never observed any such domestic traffic slowdowns within China.
Assuming this is due to congestion, it is unclear why the infrastructures
within China that handles transnational traffic is not even capable to
handle the capacity of transnational links, e.g., submarine cable, which
maybe the most expensive investment themselves.

Here is the link to our paper:
https://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/sigmetrics20_slowdown.pdf

We appreciate any comments or feedback.
-- 

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside

RE: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[David Guo via NANOG]

Hi Pengxiong,

The largest ISP in China, China Telecom offers 3 types of their IP Transit 
service

1. Normal China Telecom (AS4134), poor quality because of overselling their 
bandwidith.
2. CN2 GT (AS4809)
3. CN2 GIA (AS4809)

CN2 GT (Global Transit) is cheaper than CN2 GIA (Global Internet Access), CN2 
GIA is the most expensive but with stable and best network quality.

Have you tested all of these 3 types? According to your pdf, only Alibaba Cloud 
in Hong Kong and Singapore has CN2 connectivity.

Another reason is the population of China, which is around 1.4 billion, and 
only 3 major ISPs (CT, CU and CM) can offer service to home users in China.

Regards,

David

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Pengxiong Zhu
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 6:55 AM
To: Compton, Rich A 
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group ; Zhiyun Qian 

Subject: Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

DDoS traffic is coming from China to the outside world, which should saturate 
the upstream link of China, however, what we observed is that the upstream link 
has high and stable performance, while the downstream link of China, which is 
traffic coming from the outside world to China, is suffering from slow speed.

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside


On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:11 AM Compton, Rich A 
mailto:rich.comp...@charter.com>> wrote:
My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating the 
links.

From: NANOG Email List 
mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org>> on behalf of 
Pengxiong Zhu mailto:pzhu...@ucr.edu>>
Date: Monday, March 2, 2020 at 8:58 AM
To: NANOG list mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Cc: Zhiyun Qian mailto:zhiy...@cs.ucr.edu>>
Subject: China’s Slow Transnational Network

Hi all,

We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who have 
been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and have 
previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led to a 
publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
interesting findings.

We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance when 
accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries we 
measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational network 
performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some African 
countries).

Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign nodes over 
more than 53 days, our result shows when data transferring from foreign nodes 
to China, 79% of measured connections has throughput lower than the 1Mbps, 
sometimes it is even much lower. The slow speed occurs only during certain 
times and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion (irrespective of 
network protocol and content), please see the following figure. The diurnal 
pattern is fairly stable, 80% to 95% of the transnational connections have a 
less than 3 hours standard deviation of the slowdown hours each day over the 
entire duration. However, the speed rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in about half 
an hour.



We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are incurred in 
the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the end-to-end loss rate could 
rise up to 40% during the slow period, with ~15% on average.

There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First of all, all 
traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN, etc., which means it is 
discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic. Second, we 
found for 71% of connections, the bottleneck is located inside China (the 
second hop after entering China or further), which means that it is mostly 
unrelated to the transnational link itself (e.g., submarine cable). Yet we 
never observed any such domestic traffic slowdowns within China.
Assuming this is due to congestion, it is unclear why the infrastructures 
within China that handles transnational traffic is not even capable to handle 
the capacity of transnational links, e.g., submarine cable, which maybe the 
most expensive investment themselves.

Here is the link to our paper:
https://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/sigmetrics20_slowdown.pdf

We appreciate any comments or feedback.
--

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside
The contents of this e-mail message and
any attachments are intended solely for the
addressee(s) and may contain confidential
and/or legally privileged information. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message
or if this message has been addressed to you
in error, please immediately alert the sender
by reply e-mail and then delete this message
and any attachments. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are notified that
any use, dissemination, distribution, copying,
or storage of this message or any attachment
is strictly prohibited.

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Mar/20 00:57, Tom Paseka via NANOG wrote:

>
> Prices are set artificially high, so their interconnection partners
> wont purchase enough capacity. additionally, the three don't
> purchase enough to cover demand for their own network. Results in
> congestion.

We've seen somewhat similar behaviour from these networks when peering
outside of China, perhaps, to influence the flow of money and traffic.

We have zero patience for such things.

Mark.

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Mark Tinka]

On 2/Mar/20 07:00, Pengxiong Zhu wrote:

> Compared to other countries we measured including both developed and
> developing, China's transnational network performance is among the
> worst (comparable and even worse than some African countries).

Most countries in Africa do not implement great big firewalls. Our
problems are quite different :-\...

Mark.

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Tom Paseka via NANOG]

Most of the performance hit is because of commercial actions, not
censorship.

When there is a tri-opoly, with no opportunity of competition, its easily
possible to set prices which are very different than market conditions.
This is what is happening here.

Prices are set artificially high, so their interconnection partners wont
purchase enough capacity. additionally, the three don't purchase enough to
cover demand for their own network. Results in congestion.

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:49 PM Pengxiong Zhu  wrote:

> You seem to be implying that you don't believe/can't see the GFW
>
>
> No, that's not what I meant. I thought mandatory content filtering at the
> border means traffic throttling at the border, deliberately or accidentally
> rate-limiting the traffic, now
> I think he was referring to GFW and the side effect of deep packet
> inspection.
>
> In fact, we designed a small experiment to locate the hops with GFW
> presence, and then try to match them with the bottleneck hops. We found
> only in 34.45% of the cases, the GFW hops match the bottleneck hops.
>
> Best,
> Pengxiong Zhu
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of California, Riverside
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 1:13 PM Matt Corallo  wrote:
>
>> > find out direct evidence of mandatory content filtering at the border
>>
>> You seem to be implying that you don't believe/can't see the GFW, which
>> seems surprising. I've personally had issues with traffic crossing it
>> getting RST'd (luckily I was fortunate enough to cross through a GFW
>> instance which was easy to avoid with a simple iptables DROP), but its
>> also one of the most well-studied bits of opaque internet censorship
>> gear in the world. I'm not sure how you could possibly miss it.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On 3/2/20 2:55 PM, Pengxiong Zhu wrote:
>> > Yes, we agree. The poor transnational Internet performance effectively
>> > puts any foreign business that does not have a physical presence (i.e.,
>> > servers) in China at a disadvantage.
>> > The challenge is to find out direct evidence to prove mandatory content
>> > filtering at the border, if the government is actually doing it.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Pengxiong Zhu
>> > Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>> > University of California, Riverside
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:38 AM Matt Corallo > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > It also gives local competitors a leg up by helping domestic apps
>> > perform better simply by being hosted domestically (or making
>> > foreign players host inside China).
>> >
>> >> On Mar 2, 2020, at 11:27, Ben Cannon > >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 
>> >> It’s the Government doing mandatory content filtering at the
>> >> border.  Their hardware is either deliberately or accidentally
>> >> poor-performing.
>> >>
>> >> I believe providing limited and throttled external connectivity
>> >> may be deliberate; think of how that curtails for one thing;
>> >> streaming video?
>> >>
>> >> -Ben.
>> >>
>> >> -Ben Cannon
>> >> CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
>> >> b...@6by7.net 
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Mar 1, 2020, at 9:00 PM, Pengxiong Zhu > >>> > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi all,
>> >>>
>> >>> We are a group of researchers at University of California,
>> >>> Riverside who have been working on measuring the transnational
>> >>> network performance (and have previously asked questions on the
>> >>> mailing list). Our work has now led to a publication in
>> >>> Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
>> >>> interesting findings.
>> >>>
>> >>> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor
>> >>> performance when accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is
>> >>> often persistently
>> >>> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other
>> >>> countries we measured including both developed and developing,
>> >>> China's transnational network performance is among the worst
>> >>> (comparable and even worse than some African countries).
>> >>>
>> >>> Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign
>> >>> nodes over more than 53 days, our result shows when data
>> >>> transferring from foreign nodes to China, 79% of measured
>> >>> connections has throughput lower than the 1Mbps, sometimes it is
>> >>> even much lower. The slow speed occurs only during certain times
>> >>> and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion
>> >>> (irrespective of network protocol and content), please see the
>> >>> following figure. The diurnal pattern is fairly stable, 80% to
>> >>> 95% of the transnational connections have a less than 3 hours
>> >>> standard deviation of the slowdown hours each day over the entire
>> >>> duration. However, the speed rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in
>> >>>

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Pengxiong Zhu]

DDoS traffic is coming from China to the outside world, which
should saturate the upstream link of China, however, what we observed is
that the upstream link has high and stable performance, while the
downstream link of China, which is traffic coming from the outside world to
China, is suffering from slow speed.

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside


On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:11 AM Compton, Rich A 
wrote:

> My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating
> the links.
>
>
>
> *From: *NANOG Email List  on behalf of Pengxiong
> Zhu 
> *Date: *Monday, March 2, 2020 at 8:58 AM
> *To: *NANOG list 
> *Cc: *Zhiyun Qian 
> *Subject: *China’s Slow Transnational Network
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who
> have been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and
> have previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led
> to a publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
>
> interesting findings.
>
>
>
> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance
> when accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
>
> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries
> we measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational
> network performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some
> African countries).
>
>
>
> Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign nodes
> over more than 53 days, our result shows when data transferring from
> foreign nodes to China, 79% of measured connections has throughput lower
> than the 1Mbps, sometimes it is even much lower. The slow speed occurs only
> during certain times and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion
> (irrespective of network protocol and content), please see the following
> figure. The diurnal pattern is fairly stable, 80% to 95% of the
> transnational connections have a less than 3 hours standard deviation of
> the slowdown hours each day over the entire duration. However, the speed
> rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in about half an hour.
>
>
>
> [image: blob:null/71cf5a6a-3841-41ce-a1d4-207b59182189]
>
>
>
> We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are incurred
> in the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the end-to-end loss rate
> could rise up to 40% during the slow period, with ~15% on average.
>
>
>
> There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First of all,
> all traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN, etc., which means it
> is discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic. Second,
> we found for 71% of connections, the bottleneck is located inside China
> (the second hop after entering China or further), which means that it is
> mostly unrelated to the transnational link itself (e.g., submarine cable).
> Yet we never observed any such domestic traffic slowdowns within China.
>
> Assuming this is due to congestion, it is unclear why the infrastructures
> within China that handles transnational traffic is not even capable to
> handle the capacity of transnational links, e.g., submarine cable, which
> maybe the most expensive investment themselves.
>
>
>
> Here is the link to our paper:
>
> https://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/sigmetrics20_slowdown.pdf
>
>
> We appreciate any comments or feedback.
>
> --
>
>
> Best,
> Pengxiong Zhu
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of California, Riverside
> The contents of this e-mail message and
> any attachments are intended solely for the
> addressee(s) and may contain confidential
> and/or legally privileged information. If you
> are not the intended recipient of this message
> or if this message has been addressed to you
> in error, please immediately alert the sender
> by reply e-mail and then delete this message
> and any attachments. If you are not the
> intended recipient, you are notified that
> any use, dissemination, distribution, copying,
> or storage of this message or any attachment
> is strictly prohibited.
>

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Pengxiong Zhu]

Yes, CERNET has indeed smaller slowdown period(4 hours) than commodity
networks(12 hours), but still has slowdown.

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside


On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:36 PM David Burns  wrote:

> Did you compare CERNET with commodity networks?  (My
> anecdotal observations from a couple years ago suggest that Internet2 to
> CERNET is very good when other paths are poor to unusable.)
>
> --David Burns
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:58 AM Pengxiong Zhu  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who
>> have been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and
>> have previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led
>> to a publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
>> interesting findings.
>>
>> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance
>> when accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
>> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries
>> we measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational
>> network performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some
>> African countries).
>>
>> Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign nodes
>> over more than 53 days, our result shows when data transferring from
>> foreign nodes to China, 79% of measured connections has throughput lower
>> than the 1Mbps, sometimes it is even much lower. The slow speed occurs only
>> during certain times and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion
>> (irrespective of network protocol and content), please see the following
>> figure. The diurnal pattern is fairly stable, 80% to 95% of the
>> transnational connections have a less than 3 hours standard deviation of
>> the slowdown hours each day over the entire duration. However, the speed
>> rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in about half an hour.
>>
>>
>> We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are
>> incurred in the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the end-to-end
>> loss rate could rise up to 40% during the slow period, with ~15% on average.
>>
>> There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First of all,
>> all traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN, etc., which means it
>> is discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic. Second,
>> we found for 71% of connections, the bottleneck is located inside China
>> (the second hop after entering China or further), which means that it is
>> mostly unrelated to the transnational link itself (e.g., submarine cable).
>> Yet we never observed any such domestic traffic slowdowns within China.
>> Assuming this is due to congestion, it is unclear why the infrastructures
>> within China that handles transnational traffic is not even capable to
>> handle the capacity of transnational links, e.g., submarine cable, which
>> maybe the most expensive investment themselves.
>>
>> Here is the link to our paper:
>> https://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/sigmetrics20_slowdown.pdf
>>
>> We appreciate any comments or feedback.
>> --
>>
>> Best,
>> Pengxiong Zhu
>> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>> University of California, Riverside
>>
>

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Pengxiong Zhu]

>
> You seem to be implying that you don't believe/can't see the GFW


No, that's not what I meant. I thought mandatory content filtering at the
border means traffic throttling at the border, deliberately or accidentally
rate-limiting the traffic, now
I think he was referring to GFW and the side effect of deep packet
inspection.

In fact, we designed a small experiment to locate the hops with GFW
presence, and then try to match them with the bottleneck hops. We found
only in 34.45% of the cases, the GFW hops match the bottleneck hops.

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside


On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 1:13 PM Matt Corallo  wrote:

> > find out direct evidence of mandatory content filtering at the border
>
> You seem to be implying that you don't believe/can't see the GFW, which
> seems surprising. I've personally had issues with traffic crossing it
> getting RST'd (luckily I was fortunate enough to cross through a GFW
> instance which was easy to avoid with a simple iptables DROP), but its
> also one of the most well-studied bits of opaque internet censorship
> gear in the world. I'm not sure how you could possibly miss it.
>
> Matt
>
> On 3/2/20 2:55 PM, Pengxiong Zhu wrote:
> > Yes, we agree. The poor transnational Internet performance effectively
> > puts any foreign business that does not have a physical presence (i.e.,
> > servers) in China at a disadvantage.
> > The challenge is to find out direct evidence to prove mandatory content
> > filtering at the border, if the government is actually doing it.
> >
> > Best,
> > Pengxiong Zhu
> > Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> > University of California, Riverside
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:38 AM Matt Corallo  > > wrote:
> >
> > It also gives local competitors a leg up by helping domestic apps
> > perform better simply by being hosted domestically (or making
> > foreign players host inside China).
> >
> >> On Mar 2, 2020, at 11:27, Ben Cannon  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 
> >> It’s the Government doing mandatory content filtering at the
> >> border.  Their hardware is either deliberately or accidentally
> >> poor-performing.
> >>
> >> I believe providing limited and throttled external connectivity
> >> may be deliberate; think of how that curtails for one thing;
> >> streaming video?
> >>
> >> -Ben.
> >>
> >> -Ben Cannon
> >> CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
> >> b...@6by7.net 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mar 1, 2020, at 9:00 PM, Pengxiong Zhu  >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> We are a group of researchers at University of California,
> >>> Riverside who have been working on measuring the transnational
> >>> network performance (and have previously asked questions on the
> >>> mailing list). Our work has now led to a publication in
> >>> Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
> >>> interesting findings.
> >>>
> >>> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor
> >>> performance when accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is
> >>> often persistently
> >>> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other
> >>> countries we measured including both developed and developing,
> >>> China's transnational network performance is among the worst
> >>> (comparable and even worse than some African countries).
> >>>
> >>> Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign
> >>> nodes over more than 53 days, our result shows when data
> >>> transferring from foreign nodes to China, 79% of measured
> >>> connections has throughput lower than the 1Mbps, sometimes it is
> >>> even much lower. The slow speed occurs only during certain times
> >>> and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion
> >>> (irrespective of network protocol and content), please see the
> >>> following figure. The diurnal pattern is fairly stable, 80% to
> >>> 95% of the transnational connections have a less than 3 hours
> >>> standard deviation of the slowdown hours each day over the entire
> >>> duration. However, the speed rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in
> >>> about half an hour.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are
> >>> incurred in the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the
> >>> end-to-end loss rate could rise up to 40% during the slow period,
> >>> with ~15% on average.
> >>>
> >>> There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First
> >>> of all, all traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN,
> >>> etc., which means it is discriminating or differentiating any
> >>> specific kinds of traffic. Second, we found for 71% of
> >>> connections, the bottleneck is located 

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[David Burns]

Did you compare CERNET with commodity networks?  (My anecdotal observations
from a couple years ago suggest that Internet2 to CERNET is very good when
other paths are poor to unusable.)

--David Burns

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:58 AM Pengxiong Zhu  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who
> have been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and
> have previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led
> to a publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
> interesting findings.
>
> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance
> when accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries
> we measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational
> network performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some
> African countries).
>
> Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign nodes
> over more than 53 days, our result shows when data transferring from
> foreign nodes to China, 79% of measured connections has throughput lower
> than the 1Mbps, sometimes it is even much lower. The slow speed occurs only
> during certain times and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion
> (irrespective of network protocol and content), please see the following
> figure. The diurnal pattern is fairly stable, 80% to 95% of the
> transnational connections have a less than 3 hours standard deviation of
> the slowdown hours each day over the entire duration. However, the speed
> rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in about half an hour.
>
>
> We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are incurred
> in the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the end-to-end loss rate
> could rise up to 40% during the slow period, with ~15% on average.
>
> There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First of all,
> all traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN, etc., which means it
> is discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic. Second,
> we found for 71% of connections, the bottleneck is located inside China
> (the second hop after entering China or further), which means that it is
> mostly unrelated to the transnational link itself (e.g., submarine cable).
> Yet we never observed any such domestic traffic slowdowns within China.
> Assuming this is due to congestion, it is unclear why the infrastructures
> within China that handles transnational traffic is not even capable to
> handle the capacity of transnational links, e.g., submarine cable, which
> maybe the most expensive investment themselves.
>
> Here is the link to our paper:
> https://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/sigmetrics20_slowdown.pdf
>
> We appreciate any comments or feedback.
> --
>
> Best,
> Pengxiong Zhu
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of California, Riverside
>

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Scott Weeks]

In fact, Great Canon (GC) [55] is such an in-path system. But it 
is known for intercepting a subset of traffic (based on protocol 
type) only. What’s more, GC has been activated only twice in 
history (the last one in 2015 [55]). 
---


AT security says otherwise:

https://cybersecurity.att.com/blogs/labs-research/the-great-cannon-has-been-deployed-again

The Great Cannon is a distributed denial of service tool (“DDoS”) 
that operates by injecting malicious Javascript into pages served 
from behind the Great Firewall."

"The Great Cannon was the subject of intense research after it was 
used to disrupt access to the website Github.com in 2015. Little 
has been seen of the Great Cannon since 2015. However, we’ve 
recently observed new attacks..."

"On August 31, 2019, the Great Cannon initiated an attack 
against a website (lihkg.com) used by members of the Hong 
Kong democracy movement to plan protests."

scott

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Pengxiong Zhu]

In fact, the three large carriers provide 98.5% of China’s total
transnational bandwidth. We observe this across all the three large
carriers, as well as one smaller carrier, CERNET(China Education and
Research Network).

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside


On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:12 PM Ben Cannon  wrote:

>
> On Mar 2, 2020, at 11:38 AM, Pengxiong Zhu  wrote:
>
> Those are good insights. Our first guess is censorship too, and we
> discussed the possibilities of censorship side effects in Section 5.1
> *Censorship*.
>
> It’s the Government doing mandatory content filtering at the border.
>> Their hardware is either deliberately or accidentally poor-performing.
>>
>
> However, GFW operates as an on-path system [72], which only processes
> copies of existing packets without the ability to discard existing packets.
> Evidently, prior work has shown that GFW fails to inject RST packets during
> busy hours while the packets containing sensitive keywords are still
> delivered successfully [34]. However, we are unable to rule out the
> possibility that GFW has evolved to acquire the capability to discard
> packets.
>
> Maybe... I dunno get rid of the Great Firewall of China?
>
>
> We designed a small experiment to locate the hops with GFW presence, and
> then try to match them with the bottleneck hops. We found only in 34.45% of
> the cases, the GFW hops match the bottleneck hops.
>
> My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating
>> the links.
>>
>
> In fact, Great Canon (GC) [55] is such an in-path system. But it is known
> for intercepting a subset of traffic (based on protocol type) only. What’s
> more, GC has been activated only twice in history (the last one in 2015
> [55]). However, it might be the case that the in-path capability is
> re-purposed to perform general traffic throttling. If that is the case,
> they have done a good job because the throttling resembles natural
> congestion from the loss rate and latency point of view.
>
>
> I believe this is what’s happening, and I believe they are rate-limiting
> and causing actual congestion, as opposed to simulating it. The losses
> would be real, actual saturation, on simply rate-limited flows.  Unclear if
> this is being done on a per-flow basis or per-source or what.  You might be
> able to find out.  I’m curious if you see this across all carriers or only
> the larger ones?
>
> -Ben.
>
> The asymmetric performance between downstream and upstream traffic can be
> explained by the natural imbalance of transnational traffic (where the
> upstream traffic from China to outside is not significant enough to
> throttle).
>
>
> Best,
> Pengxiong Zhu
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of California, Riverside
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:11 AM Compton, Rich A 
> wrote:
>
>> My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating
>> the links.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *NANOG Email List  on behalf of
>> Pengxiong Zhu 
>> *Date: *Monday, March 2, 2020 at 8:58 AM
>> *To: *NANOG list 
>> *Cc: *Zhiyun Qian 
>> *Subject: *China’s Slow Transnational Network
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who
>> have been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and
>> have previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led
>> to a publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
>>
>> interesting findings.
>>
>>
>>
>> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance
>> when accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
>>
>> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries
>> we measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational
>> network performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some
>> African countries).
>>
>>
>>
>> Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign nodes
>> over more than 53 days, our result shows when data transferring from
>> foreign nodes to China, 79% of measured connections has throughput lower
>> than the 1Mbps, sometimes it is even much lower. The slow speed occurs only
>> during certain times and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion
>> (irrespective of network protocol and content), please see the following
>> figure. The diurnal pattern is fairly stable, 80% to 95% of the
>> transnational connections have a less than 3 hours standard deviation of
>> the slowdown hours each day over the entire duration. However, the speed
>> rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in about half an hour.
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: blob:null/71cf5a6a-3841-41ce-a1d4-207b59182189]
>>
>>
>>
>> We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are
>> incurred in the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the end-to-end
>> loss rate could rise up to 40% during the slow period, with ~15% on 

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Pengxiong Zhu]

Yes, we agree. The poor transnational Internet performance effectively puts
any foreign business that does not have a physical presence (i.e., servers)
in China at a disadvantage.
The challenge is to find out direct evidence to prove mandatory content
filtering at the border, if the government is actually doing it.

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside


On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:38 AM Matt Corallo  wrote:

> It also gives local competitors a leg up by helping domestic apps perform
> better simply by being hosted domestically (or making foreign players host
> inside China).
>
> On Mar 2, 2020, at 11:27, Ben Cannon  wrote:
>
> 
> It’s the Government doing mandatory content filtering at the border.
> Their hardware is either deliberately or accidentally poor-performing.
>
> I believe providing limited and throttled external connectivity may be
> deliberate; think of how that curtails for one thing; streaming video?
>
> -Ben.
>
> -Ben Cannon
> CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
> b...@6by7.net
>
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2020, at 9:00 PM, Pengxiong Zhu  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who
> have been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and
> have previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led
> to a publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
> interesting findings.
>
> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance
> when accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries
> we measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational
> network performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some
> African countries).
>
> Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign nodes
> over more than 53 days, our result shows when data transferring from
> foreign nodes to China, 79% of measured connections has throughput lower
> than the 1Mbps, sometimes it is even much lower. The slow speed occurs only
> during certain times and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion
> (irrespective of network protocol and content), please see the following
> figure. The diurnal pattern is fairly stable, 80% to 95% of the
> transnational connections have a less than 3 hours standard deviation of
> the slowdown hours each day over the entire duration. However, the speed
> rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in about half an hour.
>
>
> We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are incurred
> in the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the end-to-end loss rate
> could rise up to 40% during the slow period, with ~15% on average.
>
> There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First of all,
> all traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN, etc., which means it
> is discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic. Second,
> we found for 71% of connections, the bottleneck is located inside China
> (the second hop after entering China or further), which means that it is
> mostly unrelated to the transnational link itself (e.g., submarine cable).
> Yet we never observed any such domestic traffic slowdowns within China.
> Assuming this is due to congestion, it is unclear why the infrastructures
> within China that handles transnational traffic is not even capable to
> handle the capacity of transnational links, e.g., submarine cable, which
> maybe the most expensive investment themselves.
>
> Here is the link to our paper:
> https://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/sigmetrics20_slowdown.pdf
>
> We appreciate any comments or feedback.
> --
>
> Best,
> Pengxiong Zhu
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of California, Riverside
>
>
>

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Pengxiong Zhu]

Those are good insights. Our first guess is censorship too, and we
discussed the possibilities of censorship side effects in Section 5.1
*Censorship*.

My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating the
> links.
>

In fact, Great Canon (GC) [55] is such an in-path system. But it is known
for intercepting a subset of traffic (based on protocol type) only. What’s
more, GC has been activated only twice in history (the last one in 2015
[55]). However, it might be the case that the in-path capability is
re-purposed to perform general traffic throttling. If that is the case,
they have done a good job because the throttling resembles natural
congestion from the loss rate and latency point of view. The asymmetric
performance between downstream and upstream traffic can be explained by the
natural imbalance of transnational traffic (where the upstream traffic from
China to outside is not significant enough to throttle).

Maybe... I dunno get rid of the Great Firewall of China?
>

What do you mean? Do you mean the slow traffic is to bypass the GFW or the
slow traffic is caused by GFW?

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside


On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 11:38 AM Pengxiong Zhu  wrote:

> Those are good insights. Our first guess is censorship too, and we
> discussed the possibilities of censorship side effects in Section 5.1
> *Censorship*.
>
> It’s the Government doing mandatory content filtering at the border.
>> Their hardware is either deliberately or accidentally poor-performing.
>>
>
> However, GFW operates as an on-path system [72], which only processes
> copies of existing packets without the ability to discard existing packets.
> Evidently, prior work has shown that GFW fails to inject RST packets during
> busy hours while the packets containing sensitive keywords are still
> delivered successfully [34]. However, we are unable to rule out the
> possibility that GFW has evolved to acquire the capability to discard
> packets.
>
> Maybe... I dunno get rid of the Great Firewall of China?
>
>
> We designed a small experiment to locate the hops with GFW presence, and
> then try to match them with the bottleneck hops. We found only in 34.45% of
> the cases, the GFW hops match the bottleneck hops.
>
> My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating
>> the links.
>>
>
> In fact, Great Canon (GC) [55] is such an in-path system. But it is known
> for intercepting a subset of traffic (based on protocol type) only. What’s
> more, GC has been activated only twice in history (the last one in 2015
> [55]). However, it might be the case that the in-path capability is
> re-purposed to perform general traffic throttling. If that is the case,
> they have done a good job because the throttling resembles natural
> congestion from the loss rate and latency point of view. The asymmetric
> performance between downstream and upstream traffic can be explained by the
> natural imbalance of transnational traffic (where the upstream traffic from
> China to outside is not significant enough to throttle).
>
>
> Best,
> Pengxiong Zhu
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of California, Riverside
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:11 AM Compton, Rich A 
> wrote:
>
>> My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating
>> the links.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *NANOG Email List  on behalf of
>> Pengxiong Zhu 
>> *Date: *Monday, March 2, 2020 at 8:58 AM
>> *To: *NANOG list 
>> *Cc: *Zhiyun Qian 
>> *Subject: *China’s Slow Transnational Network
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who
>> have been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and
>> have previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led
>> to a publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
>>
>> interesting findings.
>>
>>
>>
>> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance
>> when accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
>>
>> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries
>> we measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational
>> network performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some
>> African countries).
>>
>>
>>
>> Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign nodes
>> over more than 53 days, our result shows when data transferring from
>> foreign nodes to China, 79% of measured connections has throughput lower
>> than the 1Mbps, sometimes it is even much lower. The slow speed occurs only
>> during certain times and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion
>> (irrespective of network protocol and content), please see the following
>> figure. The diurnal pattern is fairly stable, 80% to 95% of the
>> transnational connections have a less than 3 hours standard deviation of

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Pengxiong Zhu]

Yes, the sentence is missing a ‘not’. Sorry about that. It’s not
discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic.

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:56 AM Valdis Klētnieks 
wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Mar 2020 21:00:05 -0800, Pengxiong Zhu said:
>
> > There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First of all,
> > all traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN, etc., which means it
> > is discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic.
>
> This sentence is missing a 'not'.  However, I can't tell if it's "not
> treated equally"
> or "not discriminating"
>
-- 

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Matt Corallo]

> find out direct evidence of mandatory content filtering at the border

You seem to be implying that you don't believe/can't see the GFW, which
seems surprising. I've personally had issues with traffic crossing it
getting RST'd (luckily I was fortunate enough to cross through a GFW
instance which was easy to avoid with a simple iptables DROP), but its
also one of the most well-studied bits of opaque internet censorship
gear in the world. I'm not sure how you could possibly miss it.

Matt

On 3/2/20 2:55 PM, Pengxiong Zhu wrote:
> Yes, we agree. The poor transnational Internet performance effectively
> puts any foreign business that does not have a physical presence (i.e.,
> servers) in China at a disadvantage.
> The challenge is to find out direct evidence to prove mandatory content
> filtering at the border, if the government is actually doing it.
> 
> Best,
> Pengxiong Zhu
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of California, Riverside
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:38 AM Matt Corallo  > wrote:
> 
> It also gives local competitors a leg up by helping domestic apps
> perform better simply by being hosted domestically (or making
> foreign players host inside China).
> 
>> On Mar 2, 2020, at 11:27, Ben Cannon > > wrote:
>>
>> 
>> It’s the Government doing mandatory content filtering at the
>> border.  Their hardware is either deliberately or accidentally
>> poor-performing.
>>
>> I believe providing limited and throttled external connectivity
>> may be deliberate; think of how that curtails for one thing;
>> streaming video? 
>>
>> -Ben.
>>
>> -Ben Cannon
>> CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
>> b...@6by7.net 
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2020, at 9:00 PM, Pengxiong Zhu >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We are a group of researchers at University of California,
>>> Riverside who have been working on measuring the transnational
>>> network performance (and have previously asked questions on the
>>> mailing list). Our work has now led to a publication in
>>> Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
>>> interesting findings. 
>>>
>>> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor
>>> performance when accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is
>>> often persistently
>>> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other
>>> countries we measured including both developed and developing,
>>> China's transnational network performance is among the worst
>>> (comparable and even worse than some African countries).
>>>
>>> Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign
>>> nodes over more than 53 days, our result shows when data
>>> transferring from foreign nodes to China, 79% of measured
>>> connections has throughput lower than the 1Mbps, sometimes it is
>>> even much lower. The slow speed occurs only during certain times
>>> and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion
>>> (irrespective of network protocol and content), please see the
>>> following figure. The diurnal pattern is fairly stable, 80% to
>>> 95% of the transnational connections have a less than 3 hours
>>> standard deviation of the slowdown hours each day over the entire
>>> duration. However, the speed rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in
>>> about half an hour.
>>>
>>>
>>> We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are
>>> incurred in the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the
>>> end-to-end loss rate could rise up to 40% during the slow period,
>>> with ~15% on average.
>>>
>>> There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First
>>> of all, all traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN,
>>> etc., which means it is discriminating or differentiating any
>>> specific kinds of traffic. Second, we found for 71% of
>>> connections, the bottleneck is located inside China (the second
>>> hop after entering China or further), which means that it is
>>> mostly unrelated to the transnational link itself (e.g.,
>>> submarine cable). Yet we never observed any such domestic traffic
>>> slowdowns within China.
>>> Assuming this is due to congestion, it is unclear why the
>>> infrastructures within China that handles transnational traffic
>>> is not even capable to handle the capacity of transnational
>>> links, e.g., submarine cable, which maybe the most expensive
>>> investment themselves.
>>>
>>> Here is the link to our paper:
>>> https://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/sigmetrics20_slowdown.pdf
>>>
>>> We appreciate any comments or feedback. 
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Pengxiong Zhu
>>> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>>> University of California, 

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Tom Beecher]

Poor network performance between the Chinese networks and the rest of the
world is not a bug ; it's an intentional feature. The government of China
has constructed these multiple systems to both control what information is
or is not received by their citizens, but also to ensure that domestic
internet companies and services face little to no competition from the
outside world.

As we've unfortunately seen domestically as well, it's a lot easier to
convince people to use YOUR service if performance to the other services
kinda sucks. This is the exact same thing, just at a national scale.


On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:06 PM Jeff Shultz  wrote:

>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 11:46 AM Pengxiong Zhu  wrote:
>
>> Those are good insights. Our first guess is censorship too, and we
>> discussed the possibilities of censorship side effects in Section 5.1
>> *Censorship*.
>>
>> My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating
>>> the links.
>>>
>>
>> In fact, Great Canon (GC) [55] is such an in-path system. But it is known
>> for intercepting a subset of traffic (based on protocol type) only. What’s
>> more, GC has been activated only twice in history (the last one in 2015
>> [55]). However, it might be the case that the in-path capability is
>> re-purposed to perform general traffic throttling. If that is the case,
>> they have done a good job because the throttling resembles natural
>> congestion from the loss rate and latency point of view. The asymmetric
>> performance between downstream and upstream traffic can be explained by the
>> natural imbalance of transnational traffic (where the upstream traffic from
>> China to outside is not significant enough to throttle).
>>
>> Maybe... I dunno get rid of the Great Firewall of China?
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean? Do you mean the slow traffic is to bypass the GFW or
>> the slow traffic is caused by GFW?
>>
>>
> You've pretty much determined there is nothing we can do on this side of
> the Chinese mainland to improve throughput - the bottlenecks are all inside
> China.
>
> As you noted, ~35% of the bottlenecks were GFW related.  I wonder how many
> retransmissions that results in, slowing everything down that much further?
> Until the mainland Chinese Government allows the free passage of
> information, there will be bottlenecks. And bottlenecks have a habit of
> affecting traffic flows outside of their own area.
>
> I doubt that any one thing is the source of the entire problem. But add
> them all together
>
> --
> Jeff Shultz
>
>
> Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!
>
>
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  This message contains confidential information and is intended only
> for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
> delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
> guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted,
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
> The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions
> in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail
> transmission. 
>

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Jeff Shultz]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 11:46 AM Pengxiong Zhu  wrote:

> Those are good insights. Our first guess is censorship too, and we
> discussed the possibilities of censorship side effects in Section 5.1
> *Censorship*.
>
> My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating
>> the links.
>>
>
> In fact, Great Canon (GC) [55] is such an in-path system. But it is known
> for intercepting a subset of traffic (based on protocol type) only. What’s
> more, GC has been activated only twice in history (the last one in 2015
> [55]). However, it might be the case that the in-path capability is
> re-purposed to perform general traffic throttling. If that is the case,
> they have done a good job because the throttling resembles natural
> congestion from the loss rate and latency point of view. The asymmetric
> performance between downstream and upstream traffic can be explained by the
> natural imbalance of transnational traffic (where the upstream traffic from
> China to outside is not significant enough to throttle).
>
> Maybe... I dunno get rid of the Great Firewall of China?
>>
>
> What do you mean? Do you mean the slow traffic is to bypass the GFW or the
> slow traffic is caused by GFW?
>
>
You've pretty much determined there is nothing we can do on this side of
the Chinese mainland to improve throughput - the bottlenecks are all inside
China.

As you noted, ~35% of the bottlenecks were GFW related.  I wonder how many
retransmissions that results in, slowing everything down that much further?
Until the mainland Chinese Government allows the free passage of
information, there will be bottlenecks. And bottlenecks have a habit of
affecting traffic flows outside of their own area.

I doubt that any one thing is the source of the entire problem. But add
them all together

-- 
Jeff Shultz

-- 
Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!

   
      
      
      














_ This message 
contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual 
named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, 
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by 
e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail 
from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or 
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does 
not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. _

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Sun, 01 Mar 2020 21:00:05 -0800, Pengxiong Zhu said:

> There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First of all,
> all traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN, etc., which means it
> is discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic.

This sentence is missing a 'not'.  However, I can't tell if it's "not treated 
equally"
or "not discriminating"


pgpfNu52qo1O3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Matt Corallo]

It also gives local competitors a leg up by helping domestic apps perform 
better simply by being hosted domestically (or making foreign players host 
inside China).

> On Mar 2, 2020, at 11:27, Ben Cannon  wrote:
> 
> 
> It’s the Government doing mandatory content filtering at the border.  Their 
> hardware is either deliberately or accidentally poor-performing.
> 
> I believe providing limited and throttled external connectivity may be 
> deliberate; think of how that curtails for one thing; streaming video? 
> 
> -Ben.
> 
> -Ben Cannon
> CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
> b...@6by7.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2020, at 9:00 PM, Pengxiong Zhu  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who 
>> have been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and 
>> have previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led 
>> to a publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
>> interesting findings. 
>> 
>> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance when 
>> accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
>> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries we 
>> measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational 
>> network performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some 
>> African countries).
>> 
>> Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign nodes over 
>> more than 53 days, our result shows when data transferring from foreign 
>> nodes to China, 79% of measured connections has throughput lower than the 
>> 1Mbps, sometimes it is even much lower. The slow speed occurs only during 
>> certain times and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion 
>> (irrespective of network protocol and content), please see the following 
>> figure. The diurnal pattern is fairly stable, 80% to 95% of the 
>> transnational connections have a less than 3 hours standard deviation of the 
>> slowdown hours each day over the entire duration. However, the speed rises 
>> up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in about half an hour.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are incurred 
>> in the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the end-to-end loss rate 
>> could rise up to 40% during the slow period, with ~15% on average.
>> 
>> There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First of all, 
>> all traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN, etc., which means it is 
>> discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic. Second, we 
>> found for 71% of connections, the bottleneck is located inside China (the 
>> second hop after entering China or further), which means that it is mostly 
>> unrelated to the transnational link itself (e.g., submarine cable). Yet we 
>> never observed any such domestic traffic slowdowns within China.
>> Assuming this is due to congestion, it is unclear why the infrastructures 
>> within China that handles transnational traffic is not even capable to 
>> handle the capacity of transnational links, e.g., submarine cable, which 
>> maybe the most expensive investment themselves.
>> 
>> Here is the link to our paper:
>> https://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/sigmetrics20_slowdown.pdf
>> 
>> We appreciate any comments or feedback. 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Best,
>> Pengxiong Zhu
>> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>> University of California, Riverside
> 

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Ben Cannon]

It’s the Government doing mandatory content filtering at the border.  Their 
hardware is either deliberately or accidentally poor-performing.

I believe providing limited and throttled external connectivity may be 
deliberate; think of how that curtails for one thing; streaming video? 

-Ben.

-Ben Cannon
CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
b...@6by7.net 




> On Mar 1, 2020, at 9:00 PM, Pengxiong Zhu  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who have 
> been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and have 
> previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led to a 
> publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
> interesting findings. 
> 
> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance when 
> accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries we 
> measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational 
> network performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some 
> African countries).
> 
> Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign nodes over 
> more than 53 days, our result shows when data transferring from foreign nodes 
> to China, 79% of measured connections has throughput lower than the 1Mbps, 
> sometimes it is even much lower. The slow speed occurs only during certain 
> times and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion (irrespective of 
> network protocol and content), please see the following figure. The diurnal 
> pattern is fairly stable, 80% to 95% of the transnational connections have a 
> less than 3 hours standard deviation of the slowdown hours each day over the 
> entire duration. However, the speed rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in about 
> half an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are incurred in 
> the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the end-to-end loss rate could 
> rise up to 40% during the slow period, with ~15% on average.
> 
> There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First of all, all 
> traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN, etc., which means it is 
> discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic. Second, we 
> found for 71% of connections, the bottleneck is located inside China (the 
> second hop after entering China or further), which means that it is mostly 
> unrelated to the transnational link itself (e.g., submarine cable). Yet we 
> never observed any such domestic traffic slowdowns within China.
> Assuming this is due to congestion, it is unclear why the infrastructures 
> within China that handles transnational traffic is not even capable to handle 
> the capacity of transnational links, e.g., submarine cable, which maybe the 
> most expensive investment themselves.
> 
> Here is the link to our paper:
> https://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/sigmetrics20_slowdown.pdf 
> 
> 
> We appreciate any comments or feedback. 
> -- 
> 
> Best,
> Pengxiong Zhu
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of California, Riverside

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Compton, Rich A]

My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating the 
links.

From: NANOG Email List  on behalf of Pengxiong Zhu 

Date: Monday, March 2, 2020 at 8:58 AM
To: NANOG list 
Cc: Zhiyun Qian 
Subject: China’s Slow Transnational Network

Hi all,

We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who have 
been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and have 
previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led to a 
publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
interesting findings.

We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance when 
accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries we 
measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational network 
performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some African 
countries).

Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign nodes over 
more than 53 days, our result shows when data transferring from foreign nodes 
to China, 79% of measured connections has throughput lower than the 1Mbps, 
sometimes it is even much lower. The slow speed occurs only during certain 
times and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion (irrespective of 
network protocol and content), please see the following figure. The diurnal 
pattern is fairly stable, 80% to 95% of the transnational connections have a 
less than 3 hours standard deviation of the slowdown hours each day over the 
entire duration. However, the speed rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in about half 
an hour.

[blob:null/71cf5a6a-3841-41ce-a1d4-207b59182189]

We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are incurred in 
the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the end-to-end loss rate could 
rise up to 40% during the slow period, with ~15% on average.

There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First of all, all 
traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN, etc., which means it is 
discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic. Second, we 
found for 71% of connections, the bottleneck is located inside China (the 
second hop after entering China or further), which means that it is mostly 
unrelated to the transnational link itself (e.g., submarine cable). Yet we 
never observed any such domestic traffic slowdowns within China.
Assuming this is due to congestion, it is unclear why the infrastructures 
within China that handles transnational traffic is not even capable to handle 
the capacity of transnational links, e.g., submarine cable, which maybe the 
most expensive investment themselves.

Here is the link to our paper:
https://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/sigmetrics20_slowdown.pdf


We appreciate any comments or feedback.
--

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: 
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for 
the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this 
message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender 
by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, 
distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly 
prohibited.

Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Jeff Shultz]

Maybe... I dunno get rid of the Great Firewall of China?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:59 AM Pengxiong Zhu  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who
> have been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and
> have previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led
> to a publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
> interesting findings.
>
> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance
> when accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries
> we measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational
> network performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some
> African countries).
>
>
> --
>
> Best,
> Pengxiong Zhu
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of California, Riverside
>


-- 
Jeff Shultz

-- 
Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!

   
      
      
      














_ This message 
contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual 
named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, 
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by 
e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail 
from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or 
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does 
not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. _