Traffic managed on downstream not upstream - Page 2

Ignitionnet · 01-12-2010, 21:05

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!

JohnnyEnglish · 01-12-2010, 23:56

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

broadbandking · 02-12-2010, 06:49

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

chrisjones · 02-12-2010, 12:15

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

broadbandking · 02-12-2010, 14:28

Just checked on the VM forum and this is correct.

qasdfdsaq · 02-12-2010, 17:39

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

broadbandbug · 02-12-2010, 18:26

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.

Ignitionnet · 02-12-2010, 19:50

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?

broadbandbug · 02-12-2010, 20:38

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

Ignitionnet · 02-12-2010, 21:06

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.

broadbandbug · 07-12-2010, 14:28

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?

Ignitionnet · 07-12-2010, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadbandbug

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

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadbandbug

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.

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

pip08456 · 07-12-2010, 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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

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.

Ignitionnet · 07-12-2010, 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456

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.

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.

pip08456 · 07-12-2010, 15:57

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.