Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
It is common courtesy around these parts to not libel your customers, especially when they're paying you lots of money and making up 30% of your incoming traffic. That you're posting in hypotheticals does not mask your true messaging. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:33 PM, McElearney, Kevin kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote: On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, Jim Richardson weaselkee...@gmail.com wrote: I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown, that's life. But if $IP_PROVIDER throttles it specifically, rather than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud. I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only. Along with paying $IP_PROVIDER for (x) bits/sec up/down, you are also paying (or the product of advertising) eyecandysource to deliver a service (w/ a level of quality). $IP_PROVIDER plays a big role in delivering your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN). While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore decisions (and business drivers) as a potential factors in isolated application performance issues.
Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, McElearney, Kevin kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote: On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, Jim Richardson weaselkee...@gmail.com wrote: if $IP_PROVIDER throttles it specifically, rather than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud. While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore decisions (and business drivers) as a potential factors in isolated application performance issues. Hi Kevin, Network factors driving application performance issues are sometimes tricky but once the root cause is found, assigning fault is rarely mysterious. When everyone agrees the problem link is at that magical place, a mutually acceptable location where each network has been paid by their respective customer to get the packets there, one network is willing to swap those packets unconditionally and the other isn't, the fault is not mysterious at all. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -, McElearney, Kevin said: (w/ a level of quality). $IP_PROVIDER plays a big role in delivering your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN). Very true. But what we're discussing here is the *specific* case where eyecandystore's biggest challenge at delivering the experience is an external challenge, namely that $IP_PROVIDER's service sucks. It's particularly galling when $IP_PROVIDER's internal net is actually up to snuff, but they engage in shakedown tactics to upgrade peering points. pgpPjoDpSRlPb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
On 7/29/14, 12:45 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -, McElearney, Kevin said: (w/ a level of quality). $IP_PROVIDER plays a big role in delivering your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN). Very true. But what we're discussing here is the *specific* case where eyecandystore's biggest challenge at delivering the experience is an external challenge, namely that $IP_PROVIDER's service sucks. It's particularly galling when $IP_PROVIDER's internal net is actually up to snuff, but they engage in shakedown tactics to upgrade peering points. There is a great analysis by Dr Clark (MIT) and CAIDA which shows while there are some challenged paths and relationships between providers, this is the exception vs the rule. Using the “exceptions are business decisions. Performance is a two way street (as are shakedowns) - Kevin
Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
The devil is in the details. Ken Florance (http://blog.netflix.com/2014/04/the-case-against-isp-tolls.html) paints a different picture in his blog, for example. As a manager at Comcast, can you refer the people on this list to any ISPs who do not have a history of congestion into your network? This question comes up about once a month, absent any good solutions, so insight would be appreciated. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:25 PM, McElearney, Kevin kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote: On 7/29/14, 12:45 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -, McElearney, Kevin said: (w/ a level of quality). $IP_PROVIDER plays a big role in delivering your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN). Very true. But what we're discussing here is the *specific* case where eyecandystore's biggest challenge at delivering the experience is an external challenge, namely that $IP_PROVIDER's service sucks. It's particularly galling when $IP_PROVIDER's internal net is actually up to snuff, but they engage in shakedown tactics to upgrade peering points. There is a great analysis by Dr Clark (MIT) and CAIDA which shows while there are some challenged paths and relationships between providers, this is the exception vs the rule. Using the “exceptions are business decisions. Performance is a two way street (as are shakedowns) - Kevin
Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:25:47PM +, McElearney, Kevin wrote: Performance is a two way street (as are shakedowns) It takes two to lie, Marge: one to lie, and one to listen. - Matt
Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
What I would like to see is someone who sets up a VPN that has an endpoint path that¹s the same as NetFlix. If their streaming performance improves that would be very telling. Heck you could use 2 machines and do a side by side. However I doubt Level3 is going to sit there and lie about their connection to Verizon being overloaded, and for Verizon to do any kind of meaningful QOS it would require an effort on the Level3 side of the connection as well. On 7/29/14, 8:33 AM, McElearney, Kevin kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote: On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, Jim Richardson weaselkee...@gmail.com wrote: I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown, that's life. But if $IP_PROVIDER throttles it specifically, rather than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud. I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only. Along with paying $IP_PROVIDER for (x) bits/sec up/down, you are also paying (or the product of advertising) eyecandysource to deliver a service (w/ a level of quality). $IP_PROVIDER plays a big role in delivering your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN). While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore decisions (and business drivers) as a potential factors in isolated application performance issues.
Re: Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Corey Touchet corey.touc...@corp.totalserversolutions.com wrote: What I would like to see is someone who sets up a VPN that has an endpoint path that¹s the same as NetFlix. If their streaming performance improves that would be very telling. Heck you could use 2 machines and do a side by side. Been done: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-slow-on-verizon-or-comcast-a-vpn-might-speed-up-that-video/ http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186673-how-to-use-a-vpn-to-boost-your-netflix-performance-even-if-youre-not-a-verizon-customer http://www.techhive.com/article/2457642/how-a-netflix-subscriber-used-vpn-to-thwart-verizons-streaming-slowdown.html -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
