cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

Firejack
Grafter
Posts: 921
Registered: 26-06-2007

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

Reading thinkbroadband.com (ADSLguide) today, the forums are busy talking about the latest changes Entanet has made to its network in terms of traffic management.

Entanets approach is a simple throttle of all customers connected to their platform during peak times. This is much fairer then Plus.net method that only throttles certain protocols leading to problems for those of us using Usenet, FTP, P2P, plus many others and any services that hasn't been configured for the traffic management systems.

This form of traffic management seems to make a lot more sense to me and something I've questioned on many occasions as to why this isn't the method of traffic management used by Plus.net already.

People should have an even slice of the pie since we are all collectively paying for the shared resource that is Central Bandwidth. Why not follow the Entanet method and apply restrictions evenly instead of picking on certain groups of users?

Hmm I feel a poll coming on Wink
125 REPLIES
James
Grafter
Posts: 21,036
Registered: 04-04-2007

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

I'm not sure. I don't agree with reducing all speeds on all protocols. This will as such, effect every customer, whereas our policies ensure that HTTP speeds are at a maximum possible level throughout all periods of the day, exchange contentikon permitting.

Interestingly they also suggest that their customers schedule their usage after 12pm (commonly known as noon).

Quote
If users could move the majority of their downloads to after 12pm during weekdays then the issue would be reduced, as we would rather see a few users going slower and there be minimal packet loss and latency.
N/A

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

I have to say that the professional way to do it is exactly how PN have - having my home bandwith raped by my family members I have in the past had to resort to my own traffic shaping (not the case any more I might add), PN's shapping rules are similar to mine, people who cannot control themselfs on P2P usage among others owe it to themselfs that they are restricted to the lowest data rate. VOIP should always be the top of the chain to make sure it works, with ssh, vpn etc next then http and finally ftp, torents and p2p - its just the way it should be.

I am annoyed enough as it is that my VOIP isnt working right - I'd be furious if it was equal to P2P - you also have to question the legality of much of the traffic generated on the P2P protocals - I suspect that less than 5% of the traffic is used for legitimate downloads - why should I sacrifice my surfing for that!
Firejack
Grafter
Posts: 921
Registered: 26-06-2007

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

Wasn't sure what to make of that time frame. Assumed it a typo and meant after midnight :?:

Anyhow... the thing which bothers me is. You can sit down at peak times and watch hundreds of pointless youtube videos at full speed because they are HTTP traffic. Yet you can't upload/download a simple webpage by FTP. Makes no sense to me. How can youtube traffic be more important then adding a webpage? From a customers point of view all their traffic is of the highest priority. So why no treat all traffic the same?
James
Grafter
Posts: 21,036
Registered: 04-04-2007

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

If we wanted to, we could implement an additional queue and put things like google viedo and youtube in there. Now that would be a discussion for the product team to have should they wish to do so.

Our network management policy is to ensure that time sensitive traffic (such as HTTP, VPN, etc) is dealt with in a timely manner. Other less time sensitive traffic is given a lower priority and as such is handled more slowly. That is our Business Model, and Entanet have a completely different one.
N/A

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

yes this is where traffic shaping becomes fun - the next suggestion would be to add some nice fat proxy servers to proxy and cache as much of the http and ftp download traffic as possible - freeing up internet bandwidth some more, if you get that working well then maybe the traffic rules can be relaxed a little.

of corse the punters need to be happy about the cache's - isp's have to keep extensive logs as it is - caches add quite alot to that and it can get a little "big brother"!
Firejack
Grafter
Posts: 921
Registered: 26-06-2007

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

Quote
.... VOIP should always be the top of the chain to make sure it works, with ssh, vpn etc next then http and finally ftp, torents and p2p - its just the way it should be...
Absolutely agree. This is how I have things setup on my network. The point is at times when I want to upload a lot of FTP traffic. Disabling my VoIP, gaming, HTTP traffic makes absolutely no difference to the speed of the FTP transfer. My opinion is Plus.net should manage the network and let customers manage their usage.
N/A

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

Yes and in a perfect world that would be the way it is - the sad fact is that the customers cannot manage their usage and just rape whatever is available as well you know.


Moderators note by James (sallyandjames) : Removed complete quote of previous post. It is not needed. : link:rules
N/A

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

I use very little bandwidth in the large scheme of things, but what I do use is http[&s] mainly.

It causes little stress on the network, and I subsidise the heavier downloaders in the process.

Its not something that offends me in the slightest whilst it works, but if it slowed to allow P2P/Binary Usenet/et al more bandwidth - you'd see me leaving sharpish!

Perhaps those who think Entanet's system superior ought to go and give it a try.

It won't be long before their customers who have patterns like mine start looking for alternatives, and all that will be left are the users who are unsustainable.

Every ISP needs customers like me - and if they don't look after us, we'll leave, and they'll go bust;

Q ) whats the best way to ensure they have as many customers like me as possible?

A ) Strangle out the less sustainable customers, or charge them enough to make them fit into the model. Wink


Close the door on your way out guys. :lol:
Liam
Grafter
Posts: 2,083
Registered: 04-04-2007

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

The good thing about our management is the prioritisation, I believe.

For example, you might want to make an important VoIP call. All can be going well, then along comes someone who fires up their P2P client. This fights for as much bandwidth as it can and the VoIP call is affected becauce of it.

However, with the prioritisation, we can and do ensure that the VoIP traffic is unaffected, and that the P2P traffic and heavy, bandwidth intensive applications does not interfere with the interactive services.
Community Veteran
Posts: 2,322
Registered: 01-08-2007

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

I would think that throttling ALL customers at peak times is bang out of order.

So because there is not enough to go round at peak times, and thousands of people want to download happy feet, or whatever film is flavour of the month from whatever dodgy server they have found it on, my paltry bit of xbox live gaming should suffer?

I dont think so.

I think PN have the balance right to be honest, let people have a certain ammount of peak time usage, once they stray over that, then their speed starts to be reduced. So that those of us who havent breached the peak time threshold can use our connection without worry that we are going to suffer because someone else wants to download the planet.

Thats the theory anyway. If an ISP limited my peak time speeds because of other people abusing the service, then Id be off - just like many others, which would leave the ISP with just those that abuse the service - which would sink the ship, fast.

Watch and see what happens if they (Entanet) continue with that policy.
Firejack
Grafter
Posts: 921
Registered: 26-06-2007

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

Quote
.....
Thats the theory anyway. If an ISP limited my peak time speeds because of other people abusing the service, then Id be off ......
This is my point Smiley I find myself in that exact situation!!!! I have never gone over my allowance. I always download large files overnight. In my 5 years with Plus.net I've never once used more then my fair share and had to be subsidised by others. Yet I find myself penalized. Why? Sad

So frustrating that I find myself in this no mans land. I think Plus.net are brilliant in every way... even James and Liam Wink but I bang my head on the wall everyday because I try to download some files on FTP or share a gaming video I've made with friend over P2P and I can't do it Sad
Community Veteran
Posts: 26,345
Thanks: 600
Fixes: 8
Registered: 10-04-2007

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

Just because Entanet's systems are not sophisticated enough to give priority to the protocols that need to run at best speed doesn't mean everyone else should follow suit. It will end in tears!

There could be an argument for saying that the current Silver and Bronze should be treated equally - but I don't think the people complaining about FTP right now would be too happy.
jelv (a.k.a Spoon Whittler)
   Why I have left Plusnet (warning: long post!)   
Broadband: Andrews & Arnold Home::1 (FTTC 80/20)
Line rental: Pulse 8 Home Line Rental (£13/month)
Mobile: iD mobile (£4/month)
Community Veteran
Posts: 2,322
Registered: 01-08-2007

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

Sharing a game video with one friend over p2p?

Surely you would be better off just creating a web server on your own PC and have them use standard http to get it - or just upload it to somehwre like utube?

If the services of other companies look favourable, then people are free to try them (if they havent got deferred fees etc).

For myself, who uses a mix of http and gaming, the current offerings are just fine here at PN. There was a glitch a few weeks ago that caused me to make a hasty decision, but it turned out just to be a mistake, and the prioritisation seems to work well for me.

Probably not what you want to hear, but thats the case. PN do need to give priority to protocols that are of more "importance".

Importance is a very loose word to use though, as one mans "important" traffic is another mans spam traffic. You want FTP to be great at peak times, and I dont want to be shot due to lag on xbox live.

PN have to make the decision as to what efects their customer base the most, and they have to prioritise the traffic that keeps the subsidisers happy.

Penalising more subsidisers than abusers wil lead to more subsidisers leaving than abusers, which only has one outcome.
N/A

Entanet's more sensible approach to traffic management?

As much as I am peeved off with the situation, plusnets system is far superior to entanets.

Slowing down every protocal during peak times simply wouldnt work. Imagine the number of calls support would get relating to slow internet and emails. Plusnet would need to employ more support staff, meaning less profit, and in turn meaning less chance of any network upgrades.