Upstream Traffic Management Trial 1st of February

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by pip08456

I cannot see the point of it as the upstream congestion is caused by a lot of un-shaped uses as well

Not really in the case of upstream traffic. The overwhelming majority of this is P2P, there's not a lot else really that people can use to cane their upload capacity 24x7.

Makes it all the more ridiculous that VM didn't implement this first, however the shaping was implemented with cost control rather than congestion control in mind and this dramatically complicated upstream management.

I suspect upstream management being trialled is a blunt sledgehammer affecting customers regardless of utilisation but we'll see.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by pip08456

I cannot see the point of it as the upstream congestion is caused by a lot of un-shaped uses as well but I can see them doing it.

Whatever they do with it, it will make no difference to me.

I just don't like them not being open and honest and agree with Igni. Put a limit per GB and be like the rest of the ISP's instead of hiding behind unlimited.

Tell P2P and newsgroup users they will be limited to XXGB per month/week/day or whatever.

Then put every other user on the same restriction.

I disagree a little here. Based on figures postulated earlier, a higher proportion of upstream use is P2P compared to downstream, and if it makes a difference on downstream it'll make a bigger difference on upstream. Not to mention upstream is more congested on DOCSIS to begin with, and P2P upstream traffic is more constant, on all the time than, say, "other uses".

As for honesty, I can't think of many consumer ISPs that are truly "honest" about unlimited but that's how the business model works. Some use more, some use less. For all the traffic management they're introducing I'm still an extra-heavy user but since I don't get affected by the shaping, I actually (should, in theory) end up with a better overall experience thanks to their disohesty.

Same situation as with bank charges really, some people get ripped off so that others can get better service for less/free. Long as it benefits me I aint complaining...

---------- Post added at 09:22 ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I suspect upstream management being trialled is a blunt sledgehammer affecting customers regardless of utilisation but we'll see.

Given that's the case with downstream, and there's seperate STM already which isn't having much of an effect, I tend to agree.

[Chrysalis]

On upstream thats true ignition so yeah upstream shaping 'should' be more effective than downstream shaping on QoS. Of course only time will tell.

Interesting how you labeled the downstrean shaping as cost control.

What I would like to see is on this shaping it be on 24/7 (why should good quality service only be during peak?) but it also be dynamic based on utilisation so its only shaping what it needs to shape not for the sake of it. I expect tho VM will do the easy way which is just a basic sledgehammer as you say and only during peak.

[Ignitionnet]

Downstream shaping is totally about cost control, it was there to reduce the investment required in peering and transit capacity to support uplifted services and reduce stress on the existing occasionally overloaded capacity and has failed quite abysmally to do so as far as I'm aware.

The shaping in either direction isn't focussed or dynamic, it's even worse on upstream. To focus it properly would require the shaping hardware to be aware of each and every interface on the network which they most certainly are not.

The question of good service is a non-issue, if shaping is required for service quality to be maintained off-peak there are other issues and shaping shouldn't be used to try and cover them up.

[Chrysalis]

so you saying if non peak is poor without shaping they should up the capacity to resolve that right? trying to understand exactly what you mean.

my off peak doesnt settle down till 2am, and before my overlay started improving it was 4am it settled down. so is still 2 hours after the switch off time off excessive upstream congestion. This is likely to increase because a time limited shaping causes bursts of traffic when its turned off.

[Ignitionnet]

I'd have thought it's common sense that if there's not enough capacity there for a decent service even at off-peak times there are problems with insufficient capacity.

Shaping should be there to assure service performance during peaks of demand, if shaping is needed 24x7 additional capacity is required.

Though I'm saying nothing you didn't know already.

[Chrysalis]

I agree, just wanted to confirm that was your line of thinking.

[qasdfdsaq]

Hopefully after the 100mbit rollout is done VM will get upstream channel bonding working which may improve your upstream similarly to how channel bonding improved your downstream.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Hopefully after the 100mbit rollout is done VM will get upstream channel bonding working which may improve your upstream similarly to how channel bonding improved your downstream.

ideally we need 8 downstream channels to handle 100mbit (so stays below 25%). 4 upstream of docsis2.

[Ignitionnet]

Not really just not too many people sharing the same bandwidth is quite adequate, can get away with a single 18Mbps upstream so long as not many on it.

Upstream bonding is coming, been under testing by hardware manufacturers and operators for a while.

Only a couple of hardware vendors really had full support for it, neither of which VM purchased from.

[Chrysalis]

Problem is VM will over contend so that not many people on it probably will never apply here, so we may as well go the statistical contention route and have it over subbed but on a fatter pipe. Like the improvement I got from going to bonded downstream channels. Good news its coming tho, I know it probably will only be 2 upstreams but its better than one.

[linwelin]

personally i think this is a bloody joke! and i can not believe how many people seem to be going along with it, if they cannot cope with people using there services then they should put a limit on the amount of user's on there network, why should paying customers be punished for using something they r paying for! i really do not understand how some people think, yes i know internet can be slow at times, but don't blame users for that blame VIRGIN!

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by linwelin

personally i think this is a bloody joke! and i can not believe how many people seem to be going along with it, if they cannot cope with people using there services then they should put a limit on the amount of user's on there network, why should paying customers be punished for using something they r paying for! i really do not understand how some people think, yes i know internet can be slow at times, but don't blame users for that blame VIRGIN!

People go with it for a very simple reason.

30Mb for £18.50
50Mb for £25
100Mb for £35.

It's cheap, has big numbers by the speeds, that sucks most people in.

[Chrysalis]

I bet 100mbit is £30 by summer as well.

[Griffin]

I can see that happening if bt infinity offers faster speeds than they do now