On 12/26/20 20:00, Tony Wicks wrote:
Actually the equipment vendor's build in this sort of situation is normally
directly related to the availability of affordable chipsets from the likes of
Broadcom. For example the chipset in my XGSPON router is a BCM6858. No vendor
is going to spend
On 12/26/20 19:58, Michael Thomas wrote:
The thing is that the pandemic has changed the game on the ground:
there is an actual feature differentiator to be had. But having dealt
with the Linksys folks in the past I don't put out much hope that
they'll take advantage of it. The software
On 12/26/20 17:55, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Since a lot of ISP equipment only has tiny buffers you will generally
be unable to get great downloads from sources far away.
This is true for any application, in general.
500ms vs. 1ms for download efficiency will always show you what they are
On 12/26/20 17:35, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Perhaps there are some issues at other parts of the network that
limits their speeds? I'm in Stockholm, Sweden, with plenty of local
CDNs located just 1-3ms away from me.
The Swedish model (Stokab) is one to envy. If only other gubbermints
That's not exceptionally uncommon. I have seen the same thing before in
other sets of street view images.
On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 3:15 PM cosmo wrote:
> I see the logo now :
>
>
Are there 1G home routers that can do fq_codel in hardware versus the
general purpose CPU on the device? The only devices that I have that will
do a full 1G with it have active cooling fans.
It seems manufacturers need to meet that goal before we ask for 10G CPEs.
~Jared
On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at
I can confirm people in Alabama have outages as well. Reports from boots on
the ground in the Nashville area.
Comcast / Xfinity seem to be ok. Verizon seems to be ok also. Not sure the
logistics.
On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 3:38 PM Matt Hoppes <
mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
> Can
*nods* That leave delivering a better quality product to the rest of us.
Ya know, peered well with whatever other networks may exist. :-)
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Tinka"
On 12/26/20 3:28 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Use a router with FQ_CODEL and be amazed at how much you can get onto
a pipe without any perceptible difference in the experience.
I did that, after a meltdown and yes it made a huge difference. I don't
understand why CPE don't implement it by
Use a router with FQ_CODEL and be amazed at how much you can get onto a pipe
without any perceptible difference in the experience.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Thomas"
To:
Some WISPs I know moved customers from 20 megabit/s wireless to 500 megabit
fiber. Total usage in that subdivision changed about 5%.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Thomas"
Ego.
Ignorance.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Thomas"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2020 1:27:39 PM
Subject: Re: [External] Re: 10g residential CPE
On 12/26/20 1:13 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 12:58:42 -0800, Michael Thomas said:
can go on for days. We have a generator because of this, but everybody
getting a generator in the middle of the Berkeley Hills would be
something of its own horror show, but it will probably
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 12:58:42 -0800, Michael Thomas said:
> can go on for days. We have a generator because of this, but everybody
> getting a generator in the middle of the Berkeley Hills would be
> something of its own horror show, but it will probably come down to that.
Egads.
Especially if a
On 12/26/20 12:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
In the 25 years since I've lived here the power has never been out as
long as a day so I think a four day battery will give me pretty good
reliability. I know my fiber is a straight shot to the CO since I'm
only four blocks away but as far as I can
In article <653758700.2275.1608968920711.javamail.zim...@baylink.com>,
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>- Original Message -
>> From: "John Levine"
>
>> They sure seem ready to take down the oopper. The installer was sad
>> when I told him to leave my six-pair copper cable alone even though
>>
On 12/26/20 11:49 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
The thing is that the pandemic has changed the game on the ground:
there is an actual feature differentiator to be had. But having dealt
with the Linksys folks in the past I don't put out much hope that
they'll take advantage of it. The software
The thing is that the pandemic has changed the game on the ground: there is an
actual feature differentiator to be had. But having dealt with the Linksys
folks in the past I don't put out much hope that they'll take advantage of it.
The software development side was a vast black hole where time
It was not meant to be a test as such, just a demonstration. Netnod to
Bahnhof is full speed and the third server is mine, so all three servers
can deliver at least 1G.
Finding a speedtest.net server at least 1000 km away that will show full
speed at 1G is hard. Namely because most such servers
I wouldn't rely on these numbers too much, your testing methodology is flawed.
People don't expect RING nodes to be used as speedtest servers and so they are
usually not connected to high speed networks.
Using a classical speedtest.net (Web or CLI) application would make much more
sense, given
On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 7:28 PM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> > I demonstrated that it is about buffers by showing the same download
> > from a server that paces the traffic indeed gets the full 930 Mbps with
> > exactly the same settings, including
Aaron,
One simple question. Why on earth would you offer free internet service?
How and why? Your site show 1 Gig symmetrical for free when you should be a
minimum of $65 per month to be competitive.
On Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 12:31 PM Aaron Wendel
wrote:
> We run MikroTik RB4011s for residential
We run MikroTik RB4011s for residential speeds between 1G and 10G or just
supply a media converter. For residential 40G and 100G we just drop in Arista
or Extreme switches. SMBs are normally just a media converter or direct fiber
handoff.
https://mikrotik.com/product/rb4011igs_5hacq2hnd_in
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
I demonstrated that it is about buffers by showing the same download
from a server that paces the traffic indeed gets the full 930 Mbps with
exactly the same settings, including starting window size, and the same
path (Copenhagen to Stockholm).
On 12/26/20 10:09 AM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 17:50:28 +, Mel Beckman said:
If vendors saw a 10GbE CPE market, they would serve it. Obviously they don’t
see a market. Why don’t people insisting vendors build their hobby horse see
that? It’s like they’re being
lør. 26. dec. 2020 18.55 skrev Mikael Abrahamsson :
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> > It is true there have been TCP improvements but you can very easily
> verify
> > for yourself that it is very hard to get anywhere near 1 Gbps of actual
> > transfer speed to destinations just
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 17:50:28 +, Mel Beckman said:
> If vendors saw a 10GbE CPE market, they would serve it. Obviously they donât
> see a market. Why donât people insisting vendors build their hobby horse see
> that? Itâs like theyâre being deliberately obtuse :)
The number of people
On 12/26/20 10:00 AM, Tony Wicks wrote:
Actually the equipment vendor's build in this sort of situation is normally
directly related to the availability of affordable chipsets from the likes of
Broadcom. For example the chipset in my XGSPON router is a BCM6858. No vendor
is going to spend
Actually the equipment vendor's build in this sort of situation is normally
directly related to the availability of affordable chipsets from the likes of
Broadcom. For example the chipset in my XGSPON router is a BCM6858. No vendor
is going to spend money to produce a CPE that no one will buy.
On 12/26/20 9:50 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
i really don't get what the problem is. it's like they're being deliberately
obtuse.
Michael,
If vendors saw a 10GbE CPE market, they would serve it. Obviously they don’t
see a market. Why don’t people insisting vendors build their hobby horse see
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
It is true there have been TCP improvements but you can very easily verify
for yourself that it is very hard to get anywhere near 1 Gbps of actual
transfer speed to destinations just 10 ms away. Try the nlnog ring network
like this:
> i really don't get what the problem is. it's like they're being deliberately
> obtuse.
Michael,
If vendors saw a 10GbE CPE market, they would serve it. Obviously they don’t
see a market. Why don’t people insisting vendors build their hobby horse see
that? It’s like they’re being
On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 5:41 PM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> > That is why. The RTT to the source can not be larger than the minimum
> > buffer size in the transport path. Otherwise the speed will start
> > decreasing.
>
> This is no longer correct.
On 12/26/20 8:00 AM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
Anybody got a feel for what percent of the third-party gear currently sold to
consumers has sane bufferbloat support in 2020, when we've *known* that
de-bufferbloated gear is a viable differentiatior if marketed right (consider
the
percent of
>If the operator wants to keep bufferbloat low you will not be able to
>utilise your 1 Gbps to that speed when downloading from distant servers.
>But with the same bufferbloat measured in milliseconds you will still
>have a 10x bigger buffer and thus 10x bigger bandwidth delay product.
>That
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
That is why. The RTT to the source can not be larger than the minimum
buffer size in the transport path. Otherwise the speed will start
decreasing.
This is no longer correct. There has been lots of TCP innovation since
this was true.
Please stop
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 00:32:49 -0500, b...@theworld.com said:
> I suppose that depends a lot on what the actual prices of a flat-rate
> 1gb vs a fully saturated 10gb. If it's $50 vs $100/mo perhaps some
> would say ok I'll risk the $50 overage, if it's $50 vs $500/mo maybe
> not.
>
> And today we
lør. 26. dec. 2020 16.35 skrev Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG :
>
>
>
> Perhaps there are some issues at other parts of the network that limits
> their speeds? I'm in Stockholm, Sweden, with plenty of local CDNs located
> just 1-3ms away from me.
>
That is why. The RTT to the source can not be
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Mark Tinka wrote:
My experience with customers who've bought 1Gbps FTTH service is that on a
good day, they may see 500Mbps. On average, they'll live somewhere between
180Mbps - 350Mbps, with a random spot-check. It's alright for providers who
offer this to let their
On 12/26/20 16:38, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Considering my PC often saturates my 1000/1000 Internet access when
downloading, I don't see why the 1GE NIC on PS5 wouldn't be the
bottleneck if it's sitting on higher speed Internet access.
My experience with customers who've bought 1Gbps
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Mark Tinka wrote:
No one argued that Sony could build a half-decent console. Wired via
Ethernet, that's unlikely to be the bottleneck.
Considering my PC often saturates my 1000/1000 Internet access when
downloading, I don't see why the 1GE NIC on PS5 wouldn't be the
On 12/26/20 15:45, Niels Bakker wrote:
Why wouldn't it go even faster, assuming it got fitted out with a
faster network controller than what they shipped with? The storage
system in the PS5 as sold can transfer at 5 GB/sec and the APUs have
the regular set of crypto acceleration
* mark.ti...@seacom.com (Mark Tinka) [Sat 26 Dec 2020, 06:48 CET]:
On 12/25/20 23:22, Niels Bakker wrote:
Download times:-
180GB at 100 Mbps: 4 hours
180GB at 1000 Mbps: 23 minutes
For a number of reasons, highly unlikely your console will pull at
1Gbps, but yes, it would certainly pull
On 12/26/20 13:41, Nuno Vieira wrote:
Once upon a time a wise main said “Who in their right mind would ever
need more than 640k of ram?”
While everyone will take a chance at using this line at some point in a
computing career, it's somewhat disingenuous to compare (or equate) the
640KB
On 12/26/20 13:41, Nuno Vieira wrote:
Once upon a time a wise main said “Who in their right mind would ever need more
than 640k of ram?”
While everyone will take a chance at using this line at some point in a
computing career, it's somewhat disingenuous to compare (or equate) the
640KB
On Fri, 25 Dec 2020, Chris Adams wrote:
Queueing doesn't get me my next game in time to play it tonight. I've
always seen general queueing as a work-around for "not enough bandwidth
and can't add more"... but when more is available, why not just use
more?
I de-bloat my 1000/1000 with
On 12/26/20 09:44, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
By which you mean that they can safely afford to bandwidth-surf again because
the average usage is so much lower than the peak?
Unless you are providing some kind of service from your home, yes.
Mark.
47 matches
Mail list logo
