Hi,
I think some people missed my point on this discussion... so I'm going
to re-cap:
We use MT to cap the p2p sharing (during business hours only, because
that is my peak usage time). Some people say MT is only catching about
70% of the p2p traffic. My point was that by using MT (that I already
had in place and is FREE), if I am able to cap 70% of the p2p, that
should take care of 99% of the problems... because any network should
be able to handle what little p2p is left. I am also capping each sub
at the CPE, so overall I am fairly well protected from a single (or
small group) of p2p users affecting anything seriously.
Travis
Microserv
CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1
P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in
about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P
uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per
packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a
tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of
that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down
loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the
flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right...
Don't tell me not to shape the traffic.
Chuck Profito
209-988-7388
CV-ACCESS, INC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Providing High Speed Broadband
to Rural Central California
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Come on, you guys that sell "slow" broadband generaly don't have too
much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs
and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is
going to be very noticable.
Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what
happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p.
Travis Johnson wrote:
Hi,
If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p
traffic, you have bigger issues. :)
Travis
Microserv
George Rogato wrote:
How do you cap the encrypted stuff?
Travis Johnson wrote:
Hi,
First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day,
but
otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections
based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of
this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If
they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg.
The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY
else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless
competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their
connection, they will start switching to something that does not have
caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need
for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth
usage, but we allow "reasonable" usage).
Travis
Microserv
George Rogato wrote:
I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types
of
traffic and rate limit them.
And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of
various offerings we can provide.
Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic
rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price "a",
want a higher something in your package, it's price "b". Want
something different, then it's price "c".
The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.
Mark Nash wrote:
This is a good debate.
What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind
for the
last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make
$$$ off
of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a
connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as
this content
proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper
per meg,
you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to
lower the
cost of bandwidth.
However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're
not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service
anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps
providing high-throughput
content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by
going
with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED.
My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting
our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still
say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for
heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for
an ISP. Bandwidth shaping,
bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If
you have
this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with
respect to
high bandwidth usage.
IMHO.
Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get
something
done now. ;)
Mark Nash
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-5555
541-998-5599 fax
----- Original Message ----- From: "George Rogato"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Another thought is
Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast
network to
support it's business plan.
If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files
to
it's
customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of
using a hosting provider like Akamia.
Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair
compensation for services?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------
------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------
------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
|
