Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

naughty illegal torrents virgin staff! you're be banned

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

So how do you know the OP's torrents were illegal?

What a stupid and pointless remark to say nothing about being completely off topic.

If you didn't occasional make me laugh I would put you on ignore.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

I'm just wondering, if VM staff don't know what chance do us poor customers stand?:D

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

OK produce the evidence that the torrents that person was sharing were illegal or retract your highly inaccurate and potentially libelous statement.

---------- Post added at 17:43 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------

I have reported his accusation

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Wow you have to give him credit for trying hard to troll >.<

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

But telfordcable, virgin staff dont get throttled, all we do is dial 888 from our phone and we go back to full speed

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

You do realise what he is going to do now?:D:D:D

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

You are not supposed to post that information.:erm::nono::LOL:

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Well this potentially interesting thread got utterly derailed :(

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

indeed.

I am very curious if now VM dont STM upload speeds. Or if an error.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

I still stand by my reply to the OP. If staff don't know......................

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Well you know who to blame ;)

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

That would be the collection of people who bit.

Anyway has anyone else seen this behaviour where only one direction is policed?

It would be good to see!

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Anyway...there are legal torrents also...
Anyone going to answer the question & stick to the topic ? :O

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

I would like to know, I am going to keep trying it, I never knew about the 888 thing, I might try that :)

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Lol I can see people franticly smacking their '8' buttons over and over to get their next torrent fix....

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Just checked on the VM forum and this is correct.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Is it possible to do this online or over VOIP? I have a virgin phone line but my handset is broken :(

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Subscriber Traffic Management on DoCSIS 1.1 and above Service Flows is uni-directional, such that if you breach in the Upstream direction it is the upstream speed that the penalty is applied to and vice versa.

It just happens that if it is an upstream breach it will slow the downstream by way of throttling acks etc.;)

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Given that Virgin at least previously applied a penalty profile which affected both directions the capability is kinda irrelevant.

Have they now started penalising in one direction only? Is this the official policy now?

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

When STM was introduced on the VXRs all devices were using DoCSIS 1.0 Profiles and therefore QoS Profiles.
STM on QoS Profiles applied the penalty to both directions as default.

Once they started to move to D1.1/D2/D3 they introduced Service Classes

STM with Service Class is uni-directional by design.

So the fact that it was bi-directional was only because there was no other way of implementing.

As is now the case there is no way to run STM with Services Class other than uni-directional - So VM don't have a choice;)

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Not worried about the capabilities of the individual software versions, there's no need to quote release notes or whatever else you have been reading recently as you presumably have a contract with Virgin again.

Nice easy question, back to the original post's question - have the enforcement rules been changed recently?

It's always been uni-directional if configured that way, QoS profiles and SIDs. If it were purely about the DOCSIS change anyone on a 10k / BSR would have seen this as soon as they were migrated over so assuming this is intended behaviour someone has changed the configurations.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

VM moved all cable modems that were capable of supporting D1.1 working onto service flows and therefore that changed the way that STM worked.

So the enforcement rules have not been changed - It is just the way that the penalty is applied that has changed.

Design position for QoS based STM was bi-directional.

It is far more difficult to achieve the same with Service Flows so uni-directional put in place.

It has not been done recently - It has always been that way on the 10Ks and subsequently the BSRs - more recently the VXRs had 1.1 Service Flows applied so that may have been more noticable.

p.s. How are you getting on with Application Based Traffic Management?

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Personally as I'm not a customer of VM I've nothing to complain about.

Anecdotally it was a disaster and remains so. Were you involved in its' deployment? Were you the guy who went on the sick straight after it went live? :)

---------- Post added at 16:30 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------

Oddly I remember reading many reports from people on the overlay who were enforced in both directions, maybe they were on BSRs.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

When I was a customer and STM was introduced it was both ways.

I know, I was there and left. I only came back as I moved and there was no other viable option.

If it helps I was in Bolton then.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Yeah it would have been when it was first introduced. More interesting would have been if it was affecting customers in both ways still on the new overlay network - Bolton is a 10k site.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Funnily enough I know someone who will be more than willing to put it to the test in the Bolton area as he will allow me to acess his PC while he is at work with his permission.

I'll give him a bell.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

this can go some way into explaining why jitter has got worse. Previously one could get upload throttled fairly quickly by downloading too muh, so eg. a torrenter doing heavy both ways would get upload throttled quickly. Now it will just be the download and will take at least a few hours for the upload to get throttled (assuming evading the protocol shaping).

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

And how would a torrenter evade the traffic shaping? Most VPN providers either exclude torrenting (due to bandwidth needed) or charge extra to price it out.

For a serious torrenter a seedbox is the better option which won't impact on he network until the HTTP/FTP download from it which isn't covered with the shaping.(is this what you meant?)

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

a few on here have openly stated they use VPN to evade shaping.

I assume on VM I could use port 443 encrypted for torrents to evade the shaping.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Lol.. No not me.. If you remember last time I was around I told you DPI etc was nothing to do with me.. Purely DoCSIS/CMTS.

Not 100% on how CTM on the BSRs invokes the penalty.. Will check and let you know.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Sorry Chrys you are confusing torrent traffic with newsgroups.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Thanks.

Maybe you can answer one question, why 6.4MHz channels, why not bond 3.2s? Laser load?

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Are you guys getting all techie on us?

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

And why not use 12.8Mhz Flux Capacitors instead? :D

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Ooooooooooooo Flux capacitors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

I'm feeling randy now!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

pip true the VPN's are mostly used for newsgroups but p2p shaping can still be evaded.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

To answer the OP: I have a lot of friends on the 20meg service and asked around a little during management times and what not.

It appears that upload speeds are not affected. Wtih two out of three asked reporting 5mb down and 2mb up whilst the other had 6 down and 2 up.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

O.o

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

VM havent until very recently had the CMTS hardware to do Upstream Channel Bonding.. Still don't on Motorola.
Will be coming along over the coming months.
So only way to maximise upstream in the short term was 6.4Mhz 16QAM

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

I saw second half of 2011 targetted for upstream bonding on the BSR and not on the 2/8 cards that VM have used thusfar. I guess a move to the RX48 teamed with the TX32 is on the 'to do' list.

From this I take it it is the 10k being used on the 200/20+ trials.

Getting any MC3GX60Vs in to play with?

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Already using TX32 for downstream, but yes RX48 for upstream channel bonding.

The 200/20 is using CMTS from A.N.Other Vendor ;-)

Got 3G60s going into test.

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

Taking it up the 'Arris?

Re: Traffic managed on downstream not upstream
 

;)