nanog mailing list archives

Re: Caps (was Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)


From: "cb.list6" <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:34:32 -0800

On Dec 6, 2013 5:16 PM, "Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com> wrote:

On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:


I realize most of the NANOG operators are not running end user networks
anymore.   Real consumption data:

Monthly_GB    Count    Percent
<100GB         3658     90%
100-149         368     10%
150-199         173     4.7%
200-249          97     2.6%
250-299          50     1.4%
300-399          27     0.7%
400-499           9     0.25%
500-599           4     0.1%
600-699           4     0.1%
700-799           3     0.1%
800              1     0.03%

Overall average:  36GB/mo


The user at 836MB per month is on a 3.5Mbps plan paying $49.95/mo.   Do
we do anything about it?  No - because our current AUP and policies say he
can do that.


Thanks for the stats, real life is always refreshing :)

It seems to me -- all things being equal -- that the real question is
whether Mr. Hog is impacting your
other users. If he's not, then what difference does it make if he
consumes the bits, or if the bits over
the air are not consumed at all? Is it because of transit costs? That
seems unlikely because Mr. Hog's
800gb is dwarfed by your 3658*36gb (almost three orders of magnitude).

If he is impacting other users, doesn't this devolve into a shaping
problem which is there regardless
of whether it's him or 4 people at 200GB?

Mike


In a cell network, mr. Hog is most definately negatively impacting users on
the same radio sector and backhaul, both of which are dimensioned and
operated (like the internet as a whole) on statistical multiplexing.

If mr hog is blasting 50mbs on a 100meg link 24/7, nobody will perceive
100mbs since 50mbs is always consumed by mr hog.

Statistical multiplexing works great 99% of the time, and i personally
would rather not engineer the whole system to fight the 1% extreme users

CB


Current thread: