Re: Edge Bandwidth: 18mbps connectivity widely available in U.S., we just don't realize it.

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Andrew C Burnette <acb () acb net>
Date: November 25, 2007 9:00:13 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   Edge Bandwidth: 18mbps connectivity widely  
available in U.S., we just don't realize it.

Dave,

I do have FIOS (20/5Mbps service, considering upgrading) and they do a
very decent job in delivering "on net" (e.g. the old MCI backbone) very
close to rated speeds. properly tuned, I get just north of 20Mbps and
just slightly under 5Mbps up on my link.  I seriously doubt my shared
622Mbps bpon link ever rises above 10% utilization given many users
current browser and email habits.  that's going to change over time.

Places where friends and I notice slowdowns (not really surprising) is
at the peering points, and worse in places where one must transit an
additional AS to get to the other end point of the communication.  I let
friends backup important stuff to my NAS box (family photos and the
like; it's much cheaper than having them ship me yet another dead drive
to recover) and depending on whose network the other end is, the rate of
downloading a prior backup can be 1Mbps (of a possible 5Mbps) or can
soak the line.

Peering points (particularly settlement free) are looked upon by bean
counters as "cost centers" (I've run a couples IX's outside the US) and
a deployment with a gig port for the average carrier can easily run into
the $500k range without blinking.  Private gig and now 10gig ports on
those same shiny routers dedicated to a single peering session are even
less "bean counter friendly," although badly needed.

You can also see the reports in locations (e.g. Japan, Korea, London,
Amsterdam) where massive peering points exist, capacity is at technology
limits already. (Japan IX was running 150Gbps almost two years ago).

I note the 'outside US' peering as a different flavor of peering, being
more community oriented, while inside the US, it's strictly business
(and mainly in one colo provider in numerous locations in the US).

So, perhaps the next time you see the slowdown, do a traceroute and
where the hop to the next AS occurs is often where the bottleneck  
exists.

Cheers,
andy

Dave Farber wrote:
> *From:* Bob Frankston [mailto:bob37-2 () bobf frankston com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 25, 2007 11:21 AM
> *To:* dave () farber net; ip () v2 listbox com
> *Cc:* 'Thomas Leavitt'; 'Lauren Weinstein'
> *Subject:* RE: [IP] Edge Bandwidth: 18mbps connectivity widely  
> available
> in U.S., we just don't realize it.
>
>
>
> I’m happy to see a new generation of dual WAN NAT/Routers appearing.  
> The
> last batch was in 2004 and I used my Xincom for years. I recently  
> got a
> Draytek but it was missing a key feature I need – local DNS override
> because local addresses are different from global addresses. I won’t  
> go
> into detail on this issue except to note that this is one reason we  
> need
> protocols that are name<=>name rather than address<=>address.
>
>
>
> I’m very interested in other devices – last time I looked there were  
> few
> new ones after the 2004 dual WAN bubble collapsed (AKA, there didn’t
> seem to be a huge market).
>
>
>
> If you have multiple lines from a single carrier bonding can work to  
> get
> a higher effective speed but that should be a technology that can be
> deployed transparently just like other ways the network operator
> provisions the network. My real interest is in bonding at the edge –
> taking a Comcast and Verizon connection and using both for reliability
> and higher aggregate speed. And to work around port blocking by using
> Comcast for inbound when Verizon frustrates connections.
>
>
>
> The other big problem with today’s protocols is that you can’t get the
> user-bonded speed for a single TCP connection – it’s only for the
> aggregate since each connection has to stay with a single pipe (unless
> you use something like Bit Torrent). This is another reason I want the
> name<=>name protocols.
>
>
>
> As an FYI, despite my reservations about FiOS Verizon does offer  
> 50Mbps
> down so you really want routers capable of 100Mbps or more –  
> especially
> outside the US. The other caveat, however, is that high speed on the
> local link is very different from high speed to another point on the
> network. As I point out in
> http://www.frankston.com/?Name=InternetDynamic the real speeds are far
> lower. On the other hand using multiple connections and/or Bit Torrent
> from MIT which is peered locally I did achieve the full speed.
>
>
>
> I notice that the Peplink is limited to 25Mbps for the consumer  
> version
> but for a much higher price you can get faster speeds for expensive  
> DSL
> lines. It highlights the disparity between the 50Mbps I can get from
> Verizon and the limited speeds available elsewhere. We tend to judge
> reality by our local experience so I can blithely assume 50Mbps is
> available and, at worst, I can got 16Mbps from Comcast or RCN. Others
> are struggling to get 1Mbps. Again, that’s a topic in its own right.  
> As
> Thomas’ post shows by getting control at the edge we start to shift  
> the
> dynamic. Imagine if we owned our local infrastructure …
>
>
>
> I cc’ed Lauren because this is an NN issue – who determines the
> capability of the network and what happens as we seize effective  
> control
> at the edge. For those doing measurements it adds some more complexity
> as we have the policies of multiple carriers beating against each  
> other
> as each thinks it understands the traffic based on the presumption  
> that
> it’s predictable like telephony traffic used to be.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 09:11
> To: ip () v2 listbox com
> Subject: [IP] Edge Bandwidth: 18mbps connectivity widely available in
> U.S., we just don't realize it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> From: Thomas Leavitt <thomas () thomasleavitt org>
>
> Date: November 25, 2007 5:36:15 AM EST
>
> To: dave () farber net
>
> Subject: Edge Bandwidth: 18mbps connectivity widely available in U.S.,
>
> we just don't realize it.
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
>
>
> I've been noticing that prosumer level router/firewall combo devices
>
> (under $500) have started integrating dual WAN interfaces (with
>
> bonding capability) as a standard option. In the process of evaluating
>
> solutions for providing a consulting client of mine with options for
>
> expanding their WAN capacity, it occurred to me to wonder if someone
>
> had taken this to the logical next step, and created an affordable
>
> device that bonded more than two WAN interfaces. Lo and behold, a
>
> brief search in Google produces this product: the PePLink Balance 30,
>
> which load balances *three* WAN interfaces, and costs less than $500.
>
>
>
> http://www.peplink.com/products/balance-30/
>
>
>
> There's a business class version with more features, the 300, that
>
> costs $995.
>
>
>
> I'm sure there are other devices out there. This means that your
>
> average prosumer, small office is no longer limited to a choice
>
> between 6.0 DSL and 10 mbps shared media cable internet. For under
>
> $200/mo., you can get an 18 mbps connection, anywhere DSL is generally
>
> available. It also means that, if ADSL2 is available in your area, you
>
> can get up to 45 mbps download speeds, for under $400/mo. (c.f.
>
> launchpad.net's 15/1 ADSL2 service @ $129.95/mo.,
> http://www.launchnet.com/adsl2+_dedicated_soho.php
>
>  ). Upload speeds are still pathetic (1.0 per bonded line), but
>
> considering that people still pay $359/mo. for a T-1 line, $390/mo.
>
> for twice the upstream connectivity starts looking pretty good.
>
>
>
> Gotta wonder why no ISP has bought these things at a discount, in
>
> volume, and started selling "18.0 DSL" (or "45/3 DSL") as a standard
>
> service. Is there some technical issue that makes installing three DSL
>
> lines to a typical premises difficult? No indications to that effect
>
> in my experience.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas Leavitt
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
>
> RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
>
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Archives <http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> <http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>   [Powered by Listbox]
> <http://www.listbox.com>


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com