Plusnet Usergroup

All Users - The Open Forum => Plusnet Network and Technical Issues => Topic started by: bpullen on November 16, 2006, 08:29:52 pm



Title: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: bpullen on November 16, 2006, 08:29:52 pm
With all the recent performance issues being reported across the platform it seems appropriate to pull all the separate issues together in one thread which will allow discussion to be geared towards the actions we are taking and the plan going forward.

I suppose the biggest concern that customers have at the moment is that we do not have enough capacity and that we are trying to do too much with too little. Our answer to this is that our product team has done the math. We know how much bandwidth each customer is paying for, we know the design of our products and what they should be capable of and finally we know how much bandwidth we have to offer - These figures add up. Up until about 3-4 weeks ago the system was working much better than it currently is and we have added no more customers in that time which strongly suggests that there is something else going on here. With that in mind, what follows is an account of what we have been doing to restore customers' expectations and get to the bottom of the problems...

On the 10th of October we upgraded the software that runs the Ellacoya switches to version 6.4. That upgrade was problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly IRC signature detection didn't work. In addition to this we encountered a hardware problem causing high CPU load on the switches. Our network engineers worked hard alongside Ellacoya to ensure that this and a number of other configuration issues were resolved or otherwise mitigated. We now believe all of these problems to be resolved...

As part of the process of working though the issues following the upgrade to 6.4, we discovered that there were 760 customers who had been assigned an incorrect profile. The profile that they had been assigned had the same effect as giving them the PAYG experience. The result of this was that there was a lot more traffic being prioritised than should have been. More PAYG P2P means that there is less room for non-PAYG P2P/Usenet etc... A number of days ago these customers on incorrect profiles were returned to the profile that they are paying for. We have since been monitoring the platform to see if the impact is as high as we expect it to be.

When we did the last product refresh, a new set of profiles were created to reflect the new products. The old profiles were left on the ERX's to allow for some legacy products that were still going to exist. We have decided to get all the customers on to 1 set of profiles to remove the possibility of these differences causing us any issues. That work is being carried out by the developers right now as a priority 1 problem and is expected to be completed next Monday, although it will take a fortnight or so before we see the benefit of this

We are also aware that there are customers who have had issues with the performance of their VPN traffic. VPN traffic is treated as gold to ensure that it gets the right level of service across the platform. Before 6.4 there was a signature enabled to identify SSL based VPN traffic, but this changed following the upgrade. There is a feature offered by Ellacoya to prevent Skype logins from occurring which is closely tied to the SSL signature. We do not use this feature so it was not active in the config, which meant that the SSL signature wasn't either. Once that was enabled customers SSL based VPN was detected again and given the right level of priority.

One of the reasons we wanted to roll out 6.4 for was its increased ability to identify specific traffic types. We at PlusNet have been talking about encrypted P2P traffic, but it also included specific signatures for other BitTorrent / P2P apps, as well as a variety of streaming applications. From that point of view 6.4 has been a great success. Before the roll out there was about 200MB of unclassified traffic out of 3GB of total traffic. That has now dropped to 80MB.

The Networks Team have also been working hard to identify any games that are being used by the customers and building signatures for them so that they are correctly identified and appropriately treated. That work is really just business as usual for us as new games come out all the time that need this work doing on them.

Another issue is the problem of customers who are passing traffic to another customer on the same GW. As this traffic does not pass through the Ellacoya it is not being identified and correctly prioritised. We have identified a solution to this and are currently testing it on a subset of volunteering customers before rolling the fix to the rest of the customer base.

There have been a lot of questions raised via tickets as well as on the forums about different performance on different ERX's as well as concerns about high ping times on the first hop of customers traceroutes. Taking the different performance on different GW's question first, to some extent it is always going to be the case that different ERXs can have customers doing different things on them, resulting in one ERXs Gold queue (or other queue for that matter) being busier than another. This does mean that there can be different performance on different boxes at different times. Another factor that could influence the situation is that fact that we have implemented a new Core network in our newer Telehouse North facility (PTN). This new Core network has definitely improved performance for the GW that connects to it. The rest of the Core network is in the process of being upgraded at the moment. The new Cisco routers are racked and connected and work continues to be done to get the config done and traffic migrated on to them.

It has also been suggested that perhaps there is a problem on a specific BT 622 Central or even a specific device within a specific 622 Central. We are in a very luck y position on this one, in that our Senior Network Architect has an in depth knowledge of how the BT products and network is designed and has categorically stated that this can not be the case.

Now, with regard to the high ping times on the first hop of a traceroute but not on any of the later hops, for part of the answer it is easier to understand if you understand the hardware architecture of the ERX so I'll try and cover this as simply as I can. Each ERX has 2 main processors, 1 master and 1 for redundancy, as well individual line cards that the BT Centrals are connected to. Each one of those line cards is capable of making a routing decision and all traffic that is not intended for that ERX never touches the main processor. However all traffic that is destined for the ERX itself, is dealt with by the main processor. In the case of a traceroute the first hop is the ERX so that traffic goes to the main processor which then issues the reply, for all the other hops, the traffic is simply forwarded though the line cards so never has to touch the main processor.

The rest of the answer lies in the fact that the Ellacoya sits behind the ERX from the customersí point of view. As everyone know the Ellacoya marks traffic for prioritisation by the ERX. Traffic destined for the ERX from the customer never passes through the Ellacoya, so never gets given a priority marking. We have since implemented a fix that makes the ERX mark this type of traffic for the right level of prioritisation.

A number of customers have been telling us that FTP traffic has been performing very badly. We believe one of the reasons for this is that it is suffering as a result of the incorrect profiling applied to the previously mentioned 760 customers who had been assigned the incorrect profile. . Add to this the fact that the product team has taken the decision to move Business FTP to the Gold queue. Since this has been implemented we have see few if any, reports of slow FTP transfers on business accounts. Text Usenet for all customers has also been moved into gold and again, the feedback from this change has been a positive one.

If you've made it this far then well done!!

We will continue to work at providing the level of service we think our customers deserve and will provide further details over the coming week.

Kind Regards,


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: bob_cat on November 16, 2006, 09:27:17 pm

Thanks Bob for the extensive reply, I think I have actually reconsciled the poor p2p performance as being the price of the present economies of bandwidth for providers. Having spent some years at a telco (although in their broadcast arm) I can appreciate the difficulties you face compared to customer expectations.

I think BTw needs some incentive to invest in their infrastructure to see if they can make a big impact in the economies of connectivity. The telcos need to look at technologies like Raman ring laser DWDM terabit connectivity, such as I know Energis/C&W are doing for one of their big clients. The problem is with margins being tight for competition there is little interest in delivering the extensive investment.

Bob


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Matt Norris on November 16, 2006, 11:46:27 pm
Dear Mr Pullen,

Thank you for two informative, considered and useful information releases this evening. I am aware you have followed my own personal tickets and I have read your report with interest. It seems I am not alone with the issues you describe above, although perhaps one of the few customers that can tick off almost every one of them as being "affected by"! I sincerely hope this marks a turning point for a return to the previously excellent service PlusNet has provided me and other customers with over the number of years I have been a subscriber.

I am hearing reports from industry colleagues that PlusNet is far from alone on this one, although other ISPs seem less open about their activities than PlusNet, somewhat adding fuel to the fire perhaps?

You are correct in the dates you mention, at least from my point of view. I have most circumstances logged since early September and, while it is far from remedied at the present time, some issues have shown an improvement. I appreciate your reasoning on prioritising Business FTP/VPN as gold traffic, this is understandable - but I would not wish it to be forgotten that a number of subscribers with residential connections now work from home during the day and early evening, using VPN to connect into their own remote networks and using FTP to transfer resources to/from their servers. Clearly if we must upgrade to a business package, so be it, but I would hope their is room in the system to deliver a reliable QoS for this residential traffic, given it's lesser quantity, at these times?

I am currently nowhere near where I expect to be in terms of reliability, responsiveness and actual real-world bandwith, but I hope I can join with other subscribers in thanking you and your team for your efforts in attempting to resolve this clearly complicated set of circumstances.

Matt Norris


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: mrmojo on November 17, 2006, 01:02:00 am

Thanks Bob for the extensive reply, I think I have actually reconsciled the poor p2p performance as being the price of the present economies of bandwidth for providers. Having spent some years at a telco (although in their broadcast arm) I can appreciate the difficulties you face compared to customer expectations.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

I've never understood why plusnet does not properly use the peak time bandwidth. It seems to me that if you get normal premier, you should get 13GB of traffic with ZERO shaping. After that it should be degraded. However, this is not what is happening. Instead everyone on plusnet suffers with horrific p2p speeds (that even normal Tiscali seems to beat).

If the current peak allowances are not 'sustainable', why doesn't plusnet reduce them until they are? I can remember all the spin back when the new FUPs came into play and the idea was that if you had unused peak time allowance, plusnet would not screw with your connection. This has simply not happened.

I think there has been way too much apathy from the PUG on this one. Perhaps noone in the PUG uses p2p, because it seems people like Tam have been doing all the pushing on fixing plusnet's traffic shaping instead of the PUG. If anything the PUG has been busy publishing 'propaganda' in the form of slagging BT off a bit more for plusnet's failings (the report on red exchanges, which is a complete 'red' herring (no pun intended)).


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: dhookham on November 17, 2006, 02:07:36 am
I think there has been way too much apathy from the PUG on this one. Perhaps noone in the PUG uses p2p, because it seems people like Tam have been doing all the pushing on fixing plusnet's traffic shaping instead of the PUG. If anything the PUG has been busy publishing 'propaganda' in the form of slagging BT off a bit more for plusnet's failings (the report on red exchanges, which is a complete 'red' herring (no pun intended)).

I think you're being a bit harsh there... many in PUG use p2p (or try to, any road!), and there is a lot of discussion going on about improving the experience. Our preference is to have reasoned debates with PN then present the findings/outcomes. Would it help anyone if we all just stood here and whinged about the situation, rather than make efforts to find a way forward through dialogue?


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: mrmojo on November 17, 2006, 03:02:11 am
Well if you don't publish what you're doing then it looks like apathy. Especially when you put effort into publishing front page news on how many exchanges are red (which is very misleading since many exchanges have many VPs and only one of them being red causes the whole thing to be put as red -- and it would be expected that as the number of VPs rise as broadband use grows, more will hit red, even if it's in the same proportion as years or months ago).


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: LC100 on November 17, 2006, 07:49:16 am
Hi

It's very evident there is way too little bandwidth spare if it only takes 760 customers to have an incorrect PAYG profile to negatively affect the remaining 160,000 customers!  So if over of the next couple of weeks 700 or so new PAYG customers join PlusNet we are back to the same situtation again and more playing about with bandwidth management to squeeze them in.

I am a PAYG customer and have no speed problems and don't use P2P, however how long before PAYG customers get extra management to help support this overstretched creaking network?




Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: bob_cat on November 17, 2006, 08:24:06 am

I have gone from expecting to be able to achieve what is outlined toward expecting what I see as presently possible. I wouldn't mind going back to the allowances caping situation (because we clearly have gone from those days), but I am not sure the BTw pricing model can sustain it. Unless on the otherhand, when the team did their calculations about how much bandwidth we get for the price we pay they did that on a broad sweep. have allocated for everyone on the basis of an average account and not actually calculated the cost of us Premier customers.

Who knows, but I am just resigned, I know if I go elsewhere I will have a month of grief as I sort everything out and the way the market is growing it won't be long before the network I end up on gets saturated as well. May 2007, the new BTw prices.... :-(

Bob


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on November 17, 2006, 08:59:20 am
... we discovered that there were 760 customers who had been assigned an incorrect profile ... giving them the PAYG experience. We have since been monitoring the platform to see if the impact is as high as we expect it to be.

And were those 760 people heavy users ? What sort of monthly and peak time usage did they have?

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: bpullen on November 17, 2006, 10:29:18 am
And were those 760 people heavy users ? What sort of monthly and peak time usage did they have?

Hi,

I will try and get hold of this information for you.

Kind Regards,


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on November 17, 2006, 12:00:00 pm
I suppose the biggest concern ... is that we do not have enough capacity ... our product team has done the math. We know how much bandwidth each customer is paying for, we know the design of our products and what they should be capable of and finally we know how much bandwidth we have to offer - These figures add up.

So does this add up? How do we explian the dropped Gold and Silver traffic as described here (http://usergroup.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,3707.0.html)? Which we are still patiently waiting for a reply to.

A number of days ago these customers on incorrect profiles were returned to the profile that they are paying for. We have since been monitoring the platform to see if the impact is as high as we expect it to be.

Now these people have been moved off the PAYG profile, why as a PAYG customer am I seeing ANY traffic dropped and causing me problems on gaming to which I refer you to ticket 20240771 which started on September/7th.

regards,
SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Simon Day on November 17, 2006, 03:54:26 pm
Hi Guys,

I have posted a follow up to this post in the Portal Forums http://portal.plus.net/central/forums/viewtopic.php?p=376524#376524 (http://portal.plus.net/central/forums/viewtopic.php?p=376524#376524)

Thanks

Simon


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: LC100 on November 17, 2006, 05:39:03 pm
Hi Simon

Thank you for the updates.

It is very evident that the whole system is pushed to the absolute limit.  Are you not at the point where soon gold and titanium queues are demanding more bandwidth than you have available even if everything else is traffic shaped so much it stops?

If you take on 760 new PlusNet PAYG customer's what will happen then? 

If it is clear that some customer's have deliberately been faking signatures of VoIP traffic to get at an unfair share of bandwidth that those customer's are now ex-customers?  They obviously know what they are doing and if they remain customer's they will of course just find another way to steal from the rest of us.  These customers have just shown that the traffic management system has provided them with a method to get more bandwidth rather than a lesser but fairer share, while honest customerís have suffered.

Iíd also would like to say that if money is that tight why not consider putting the prices up?  I am sure most people would be happy paying an extra £1.00 to get a better service, and those price conscious customers that would leave, as you might then seem less competitive will already be leaving to join the likes of Sky and Talk Talk.  Knowing someone with Sky I have to say they are no where near as traffic managed as PlusNet customerís and it costís them just £5.00 a month for 40Gbyte.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: psycho99 on November 17, 2006, 05:40:53 pm
Grateful for the announcement that slow P2P is being investigated.
I do use P2P (Bittorrent)in the off-peak hours and can confirm the miserable performance of late.
I have put up with it hoping it would improve but I think I would have put in a concern eventually.
So, grateful for those who raised this issue in the first place .......

Yours ever, one of the silent (and suffering !) majority


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Simon Day on November 17, 2006, 11:22:03 pm
Guys, happy to have the discussion, but could we have it in the portal forums? Hard to maintain to forum threads, even with 1/2 a bottle of nice merlot inside me  :mrgreen:


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Graham W on November 18, 2006, 12:35:21 am
Guys, happy to have the discussion, but could we have it in the portal forums? Hard to maintain to forum threads, even with 1/2 a bottle of nice merlot inside me  :mrgreen:

Being an F9er, how do I get to see Plus fora?


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: The Dude on November 18, 2006, 01:23:58 am
You have to sign in as a guest, I'm with Free-Online so that is how I have to do it.  This does mean that you can't post on the forum though.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: wildmind on November 18, 2006, 08:20:31 am
Problem is Simon - that the discussion was posted to the PN portal forum.

May be better in future to post PN Family discussions here and then point the portal forum users here to have 1 consolidated discussion?


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Theo on November 18, 2006, 09:59:43 am
Guys, happy to have the discussion, but could we have it in the portal forums? Hard to maintain to forum threads, even with 1/2 a bottle of nice merlot inside me  :mrgreen:

No please kep the discussion here.   If it goes on the portal forum then the community is split between plusnet fol f9 etc.  The fol forum is not very active, as a guest on the more active plus forum I can't post.

If discussions are to be moved to the plus forum what is the point of PUG?

Simon,  was that the merlot talking :wink:



Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: NB on November 19, 2006, 01:25:52 pm
[RANT]
Right, I've taken most of the changes over the last few years with a lot of patience and understanding.  I've stuck with it through the many changes, BBP, FUP, SUP, AUP, and this years many ****UP's.  But my tolerance has finally snapped.  I use an external hosting co, Fuzioned, for my webhosting and e-mail.  I do this for two reasons, firstly the fact that BB+ customers don't get cgi, and secondly (and most important) because of the unending unreliablility of Plusnets hosting & e-mail systems.

Last night- well this am to be exact, I was doing my monthly site backups.  I had a 17.6MB Gzipped file to download via ftp.  What speed was I getting between 2am and 4am?  850b/s, yes you read that right not Mb, not Kb, just b. :evil: :evil: :evil:

It wasn't until around 4.15 am that download speeds finally crept up to double digit Kb's.

Now I had a torrent d/ling and thought that it may be limiting the bandwidth for ftp for BB+ users so I stopped it and it made absolutely no difference. Then I thought it may be at the server end so I copied the file into a publicly accessable directory and d/l'ed it in seconds (at the same time as ftp was doing only 800b/s) it arrived via http at about 500k/s.   So it definetly wasn't either my connection, exchange congestion, an overloaded pipe, or my hosts server being overloaded or any of the other common fob offs CS would no doubt put forward.

There is only one possibility, the ellacoyas are throttling FTP to the point of being unusable at any time of day or night for BB+ users now.  I find it ridiculous that I can be simultaneously seeing 40K/s via p2p at 2am but barely able to even connect via FTP. :?  The ellacoyas are needing taken out and shot to put us all out of their misery.

I'm not going to waste time raising a ticket. Everyone in PUG and in PN networks knows there is a problem and also where the problem lies.  I'm just going to say one thing. I'm doing my site backups again this time next month, if I'm still seeing such dismal speeds on FTP due to the FUBAR ellacoyas my Christmas present to myself will be a MAC key and an ISP that allows the use of FTP before 4.30am!!!!

[/RANT]


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: smithies on November 20, 2006, 06:25:11 pm
I too have big problems trying to use FTP ....
About a week a go Pl;us Net seemed to have fixed my issue where i was getting between 1k/s and 20k/s , what ever they did gave me 6Mb no problem.
All the time my http etc was roaring along at 6Mb it was just the ftp side of things.
But yesterday my FTP is back to worse than dialup speeds and i have not gone above 30k/s in fact i tried updating my GCC on my Arch Linux and i had to quit the update as it was going fro 0k/s to 4k/s !!!!!
One other thing i have noticed is that the data stops and starts in bursts no continuous like on my works 2Mb Plus net account.......

Come on guys what are you doing about this issue , i'm not going to continue paying £21.99 a month if you don't get to the bottom of this soon.

And no my modem is fine i am right next door to my exchange good SNR / Db etc.....
Http PERFECT , just FTP is crap !!!!

HELP .......
 :x


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: neilarmstrong on November 21, 2006, 08:40:36 am
Http PERFECT , just FTP is crap !!!!

Hmmm, very frustrating this, we thought we had FTP cracked over the weekend but clearly not. Customers aren't getting FTP speeds as we have designed the system to and we WILL fix this. We're doing daily workshops on this to identify the source of issues and resolve them and will continue to do this until everyone is happy that they are getting the service they are paying for.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: glloyd on November 21, 2006, 09:39:09 am
Could I ask a question out or curiosity - When using a premier account is there anything which is not traffic shaped and you can download at full line speed?

I'm not a great downloader at all but it does seem to me that with all the talk of traffic shaping and restricted speeds on this and that protocol having higher line speeds are just a waste of time.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: neilarmstrong on November 21, 2006, 12:30:01 pm
Thanks for the question. It's designed that real time applications like gaming/voip never slow down, interactive applications like web surfing are not restricted (that doesn't mean they will never slow down as there is always a level of contention in our network and our suppliers network at peak times). At busy times non-real time applications (downloads & email) will see some delays and pure download applications (p2p, usenet etc) will have less priority.

So when the network is busy you're unlikely to get full line rate on surfing for example but there are no artificial restrictions to affect your service*. When the network is less busy in theory everything would run at up to line rate - but still with trafic ranked.

*NB - a 128kbps rate limit on VoIP is being tested at the moment for residential customers and a 256kbps rate limit for business customers but this should have no detrimental impact on VoIP. Likewise we are testing a 500kbps rate limit on gaming as this shouldn't affect any gaming but will prevent people disguising downloads as gaming to cheat the system.

We're working on a full update to go out this week on where we are with our ever evolving traffic management system.

Hope that helps?


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Tam on November 21, 2006, 01:07:44 pm
when will the change of contract notifications go out and the usual 30 days to leave if you don't agree to the T&C's ?


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: glloyd on November 21, 2006, 01:07:53 pm
Thanks for the reply Neil although I will never understand why customers cannot have a set limit of unristricted download speed before traffic management is implemented. It seems to me the low user is being punished because of the habbits of high users. Surely the fairest way to implement traffic shaping is to say you get X amount at full line speed then you are restricted by Y amount there after. That way the light users are not punished because high users use.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on November 21, 2006, 01:12:46 pm
I will never understand why customers cannot have a set limit of unrestricted download speed before traffic management is implemented ...

It is something PN can never actually guarantee given how they buy 'bandwidth', and by this I mean the maximum Mb/s they can get over their network through BT. At the moment they have 3100Mb/s of bandwidth for 1400000 customers at peak times.

SW.

edit: silly typos


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: smithies on November 21, 2006, 01:16:42 pm
Just in case someone wants to investigate my problem further ?

My username is :  smithies

Premier "Upto 8Mb" account

Static i.p : #################

Plus Net account...

Thanks in advance i hope ?

[Mod Note: IP Address Removed]


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: biondani on November 21, 2006, 01:19:51 pm
I wouldn't recommend posting your ip in the forum.

Ian


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Tam on November 21, 2006, 01:21:42 pm
Thanks for the reply Neil although I will never understand why customers cannot have a set limit of unristricted download speed before traffic management is implemented. It seems to me the low user is being punished because of the habbits of high users. Surely the fairest way to implement traffic shaping is to say you get X amount at full line speed then you are restricted by Y amount there after. That way the light users are not punished because high users use.

Yep - easily the fairest way ... however - that would require PlusNet to actually have the bandwidth to offer you full line speed for x gb each month .... something which was considered and orginally planned, but ultimatly they dont have enough money or bandwidth for.

Think of the shareholders - they need to make money somehow!.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: neilarmstrong on November 21, 2006, 02:15:10 pm
Yep - easily the fairest way ... however - that would require PlusNet to actually have the bandwidth to offer you full line speed for x gb each month

Anyone seen this? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/21/blueyonder_gets_throttled/

Lets do some maths - take 200,000 customers give 1GB totally unshaped traffic available at peak, adjust to 8Mbps line speed, work out how fast someone can use 1GB, multiply that by number of customers online at once gives you the theoretical bandwidth requirement at that split-second in time. Divide by 622Mb (minus overheads) for a central pipe and that will give you a totally unrealistic number of pipes that would send any ISP bust in days.

No ISP budgets based on everyone using everything at once, it just isn't possible. No ISP can guarantee full line speed on anything because it isn't in their control. What we have said is that customers get an allowance and those customers, individually, will not get restricted within that allowance. However there is still a finite amount of bandwidth based on our business rules (which are well publicised on the site and havent' changed) and therefore contention always exists.

A few months ago the system was working fine. Now its not. We recognise that. If we don't fix it so that customers get what they are paying for all our customers will leave, its as simple as that. That's why we're fixing it.

We're seeing the new LLU providers promising unrealistic usage levels, and early customers getting good speeds. That will change as soon as the massive backlogs of customers actually get provisioned and their accountants actually understand the horrendous costs of unmanaged bandwidth. And lo and behold every single one of those ISPs will have to fess up to a usage management system. NTL/Telewest have finally come clean 12 months after they implemented Ellacoyas. Does anyone honestly believe that every other ISP isn't also doing this?


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Tam on November 21, 2006, 02:38:00 pm
I wouldn't recommend posting your ip in the forum.

Ian

Yeah - coz its not hard to look up the IP associated with smithies is it ! :cry: :cry:


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Tam on November 21, 2006, 02:49:20 pm
Yep - easily the fairest way ... however - that would require PlusNet to actually have the bandwidth to offer you full line speed for x gb each month

Anyone seen this? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/21/blueyonder_gets_throttled/


Oohh .. look Plusnet/Neil Armstrong trying to spin their way out of something again!

Neil, if your going to spin everything - at least try it with something useful which might convince more than a blind midget, using the suggested link above is, to be honest, offensive and I would suggest a short term ban on your posting is in order! 

The link you have posted is blueyonder shaping "high usage" users (these appear from other forums to be 100gb+ per month! and it is a small trial in a small area of the UK) its not shaping every protocol of every user on its platform.



Lets look at it another way shall we?

NTL/Telewest/Blueyonder don't shape UNLESS the customer is a heavy user (reports are 100Gb+ per month).

BT don't shape they have fixed allowances. (Full speed to their allowed limit)
Zen don't shape they have fixed allowances. (Full speed to their allowed limit)
Eclipse don't shape they have fixed allowances. (Full speed to their allowed limit)
Freedom2Surf don't shape they have fixed allowances. (Full speed to their allowed limit)


Need i go on?  :?


PlusNet cannot provide full speeds, not even to their PAYG users on all protocols at anytime! ... but other ISP's can all the time?? - Seems like it is PlusNet with the problem if you ask me (Greed would be top of my list!).


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Inactive on November 21, 2006, 02:57:57 pm
Well all I have to say on the matter is this;

I was with PN until last weekend on their Premier 1 Option MAX via BT. @ £21.99 per month.

I rarely use over 5GB per month, my speeds varied widely from around the 3000 mark up to a max of 5000.


I have moved to IDNet using their £17.99 a month service which includes 2GB per month and an additional £1 a GB over and above.

So costs are around the same, some months cheaper.

I get a fixed IP Address, as many e mail addresses as I want, a human being that answers the phone within 3 rings and knows what they are talking about, and my speed has never gone below 5000, usually it is over 6000 even at busy times.

So why can Plusnet not do it then?


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: biondani on November 21, 2006, 02:58:47 pm
Yeah - coz its not hard to look up the IP associated with smithies is it ! :cry: :cry:

Maybe not but at least it keeps more "amateur" hackers/spammers at bay ;-)

Ian


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: glloyd on November 21, 2006, 03:31:29 pm
But you don't have 200,000 customers on IPSTREAM and not everybody is on 8Mbps and those that are few get maximum 8Mps speed. Not everybody would want to download at the same time, even if they did natural contention would kick in. Even at off peak times there is traffic shaping and speeds are up and down like a yo yo.

It has never made any sense to me to restrict download speed rather than volume. If you slow down downloads customers are using a given bandwidth for a longer time than if they could download at full speed and free up the bandwidth for someone else.

As I said in my last post lite users get punished at the same rate as high users which in my view is not fair. I only download the odd file now and again but get managed as the same rate as someone who downloads loads yet I pay for a Premiem account for which I see no advantage over the cheaper accounts.

Lets do some maths - take 200,000 customers give 1GB totally unshaped traffic available at peak, adjust to 8Mbps line speed, work out how fast someone can use 1GB, multiply that by number of customers online at once gives you the theoretical bandwidth requirement at that split-second in time. Divide by 622Mb (minus overheads) for a central pipe and that will give you a totally unrealistic number of pipes that would send any ISP bust in days.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: neilarmstrong on November 21, 2006, 03:54:17 pm
As I said in my last post lite users get punished at the same rate as high users which in my view is not fair. I only download the odd file now and again but get managed as the same rate as someone who downloads loads yet I pay for a Premiem account for which I see no advantage over the cheaper accounts.

The system is designed that business customers have the highest priority, then teleworker, then PAYG, then Premier than Plus. The differences for those who have one of each account are obvious to see - Plus for example explicitly isn't designed for file downloading at peak times and is restricted even off-peak. PAYG customers have no specific restrictions on file downloading and off-peak neither to Premiwer customers. Light users absolutely should (and do) have a much better experience than heavy users, but clearly the difference is not evident enough. Likewise customers who pay more should (and do) get a better experience, but again the difference is clearly not obvious enough and on certain protocols is not good enough (FTP being an example). The system is designed to be totally fair about how we allocate the bandwidth according to how much customers pay and how much they use.

Right now the traffic management issues that you are experiencing are causing a lot of customer dissatisfaction (and therefore MAC key requests) and we are highly motivated to resolve it so that customers like you get a great experience and want to stay with PlusNet.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Tam on November 21, 2006, 03:58:47 pm
As I said in my last post lite users get punished at the same rate as high users which in my view is not fair. I only download the odd file now and again but get managed as the same rate as someone who downloads loads yet I pay for a Premiem account for which I see no advantage over the cheaper accounts.

Right now the traffic management issues that you are experiencing are causing a lot of customer dissatisfaction (and therefore MAC key requests) and we are highly motivated to resolve it so that customers like you get a great experience and want to stay with PlusNet.

If i was a premier user paying £21.99 per month - the only thing that would make me stay at plusnet is allowing me my 15Gb peak time allowance at full speed on whatever protocol i use.

If not - then I'll take my £21.99 per month and move it to any other ISP all of whom appear to be able to offer me exactly what I want, some considerably cheaper than PN to begin with!



Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: fenlandbroadband on November 21, 2006, 04:39:09 pm
Yep - easily the fairest way ... however - that would require PlusNet to actually have the bandwidth to offer you full line speed for x gb each month

Anyone seen this? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/21/blueyonder_gets_throttled/

Lets do some maths - take 200,000 customers give 1GB totally unshaped traffic available at peak, adjust to 8Mbps line speed, work out how fast someone can use 1GB, multiply that by number of customers online at once gives you the theoretical bandwidth requirement at that split-second in time. Divide by 622Mb (minus overheads) for a central pipe and that will give you a totally unrealistic number of pipes that would send any ISP bust in days.

Ah but you see, that's not how an ISP works.

You know full well, just as the rest of us do, that not all 200,000 customers are going to be online at the same time, they're not all going to be downloading at full speed, and aren't all going to be doing so on the same day (straight away you'd have to spread the usage out over a month rather than lumping it in as all happening on one peaktime evening).

By the way, are all of the bits of information on http://www.plus.net/8mb 100% fully accurate and truthful with regards to the PlusNet offering?


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Oldjim on November 21, 2006, 05:06:27 pm
[PAYG customers have no specific restrictions on file downloading and off-peak neither to Premier customers.
This may well be true but P2P is still limited at peak times for all users. It's just that some have extra throttling added to slow it even further. To state that there are no specific restrictions is being somewhat economical with the truth as there are still the non specific restrictions.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: LC100 on November 22, 2006, 01:01:58 pm
Hi

Quote
Plus for example explicitly isn't designed for file downloading at peak times and is restricted even off-peak.

And the marketing department have the nerve use the word "Plus"!  Is this for "Plus extra throttling".

I can understand PlusNet throttling certain traffic to managed it's costs etc, however the problem seems to be now that there isn't enough bandwidth to go around even when managed.

Keep the management of course, but stop bushing this as the only way forward because you can of course buy more bandwidth!  Okay, we know this isn't going to happen due to the pending takeover and has been the issue for a while now, PlusNet have been penny pinching.

When I first joined PlusNet (several years ago) it only seemed like every other week PlusNet boasted they were adding further capacity, how times have changed!


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: neilarmstrong on November 22, 2006, 04:03:55 pm
When I first joined PlusNet (several years ago) it only seemed like every other week PlusNet boasted they were adding further capacity, how times have changed!

Absolutely - we've posted many times before about how much we over-provisioned bandwidth following the laucnh of CBC. Because of that we had to lower the number of pipes and imnplement traffic management in the first place in order for the business to be sustainable. We've seen plenty of ISPs go bust or be bought and there will be more who still haven't got their capacity budgeting under control.

Only yesterday we attended a BT Wholesale broadband industry forum where senior staff from three ISPs (one larger than PlusNet, one smaller than PlusNet but well established and another smaller than PlusNet who are attracting lots of customers at the moment) admitted that their bandwidth growth is out of control and causing operational and financial difficulties.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: jelv1 on November 22, 2006, 04:07:06 pm
Would one of the "another smaller than PlusNet who are attracting lots of customers at the moment" be one where we are seeing a lot of people on the portal forums reporting they are migrating to at the present time?


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: kitz on November 22, 2006, 04:08:36 pm
>> too much apathy from the PUG on this one. Perhaps noone in the PUG uses p2p,

And why I (and others) have spent evenings running p2p and giving them graphs and figures showing them exactly what Ive been been experiencing.
I cant speak for whats happened over the past 11 days since Ive not been around.

>> and it would be expected that as the number of VPs rise as broadband use grows.

There are actually far FEWER VPs.  
In usual BT style they havent released full details, but what I can gather over the past few months all exchanges should now have "Super VPs".

Previously you could have a DSLAM with many VPs (6/12 etc) all with xMB of bandwidth.
The SuperVPs work differently the DSLAM has XMB of backhaul and this is shared by all users on the dslam.  Theres no longer a 50:1 or 20:1 VP - it all goes down the same pipe, with BT doing the shaping for which users get priority (Home v Office etc).

No-one ever really knew what caused an exchange to go to red in the past - but from my own personal experience it was speeds of under 400Kbps for several days in a row.  At this point the exchange would be marked red and a fix date set.
However - if before the fix date the exchange suddenly got "acceptable" speeds again for a few days - then nothing was done.  Hence why at one point so many exchanges swung in and out of red for months and users complaining that fix dates used to seemingly come and go without a final decent fix.

What causes these new super VPs to be classed as red - I dont know - obviously it wont be quite the same as the old system.

PN capacity is something that does concern me - its something I do periodically nag about from time to time - hell its why I spent so much time trying to work out what was going on and what the capacity report was all about.
Its why I used to get figures from the old style graphs and accumulate hard facts.

Im not up to speed yet on whats happened over the past 10 days or so - but I do find it strange that so many more reports of poor speeds seemed to co-incide with release 6 whatever of the ellacoyas.  I am strongly of the opinion of what speeds you can get depends on which gateway youre connected to.
I stand firm that PN customers shouldnt have to go pipe hopping to get better speeds.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: kitz on November 22, 2006, 04:15:44 pm
Quote
Lets do some maths - take 200,000 customers give 1GB totally unshaped traffic available at peak, adjust to 8Mbps line speed, work out how fast someone can use 1GB, multiply that by number of customers online at once gives you the theoretical bandwidth requirement at that split-second in time.

Doesnt work like that though - like you say no ISP could ever afford to do that and that isnt what people here are asking for.
They are simply asking for their "fair share of the pizza", without someone taking the cheese topping off.
Even Zen despite their -cough- "no contentention on our network" -cough- claims cant guarantee, nor do they do the maths like that.

Ive tried to do the maths before, it took me a long time to work it out despite the fact that I dont have the full figures that you have access to, but I suspect they were pretty damn close.
Ive said before I feel you went wrong with the BB+ account and the early claims. Theres very little profit in this account yet too many users "abused" it trying to get out what they could simply because no strict limits were set.
Therefore can you really blame anyone for at least trying it on?

I do see both sides of the fence in this - I realise that the customers you are targeting with the BB+ product are those self same customers who are looking at the likes of Tiscali and Orange etc and their claims of "Unlimited".
It should be OFCOM who are stamping hard down on this practice in the industry as a whole.

Quote
NTL/Telewest have finally come clean 12 months after they implemented Ellacoyas. Does anyone honestly believe that every other ISP isn't also doing this?

PN were the forerunners to experiment with the ellacoyas to squeeze out what they could.  Yes I do believe you have some of the best experts.
No they werent the first to implement traffic shaping.
How many other ISPs are doing this? -  I honestly dont know.

I understand where youre coming from many ISPs refuse to discuss this with their users.

Tiscali, Homecall etc are being very restrictive with p2p.
Several ISPs dont have ellacoyas yet are likely to be doing "primitive shaping" using Junipers or equivalents.
Eclipse - Ive tried several times to get information from them as to what extent they shape - but they aint saying anything.
Pipex do and have done shaping for a long time - heck I remember feeling worried over 2 years ago at the massive influx of pipex users that came over to PN when you first introduced the first 2Mb product.

I strongly suspect that "one of the largest ISPs" has had a hell of a lot of ellacoyas for quite a while, they just dont know how to work them properly yet, so perhaps havent put their users under so much "pressure".

Something that PN "forgot" is that you still have some "techies" who arent as likely to be fobbed off with some of the pathetic excuses Ive seen given to users of other ISPs such as the likes of the average tiscali/wanadoo users.

One thing I do strongly object to is the words "Unlimited".. and the mention of "Free" 
IMHO the contention based explanations (ie the 30:1 stuff) are totally meaningless.
I should imagine that most of the larger ISPs are running at way over 100:1


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: jelv1 on November 22, 2006, 04:54:39 pm
Ive said before I feel you went wrong with the BB+ account and the early claims. Theres very little profit in this account yet too many users "abused" it trying to get out what they could simply because no strict limits were set.
Therefore can you really blame anyone for at least trying it on?

Absolutely right. When BB+ came out there were many people asking why should you pay more for Premier (or PAYG with an extra allowance) when BB+ would let you do whatever you wanted. In spite of it being repeatedly stated that BB+ "is not suitable for data-intensive applications such as file-sharing and large downloads", people are going to ask why a few months ago they were getting reasonable speeds and now they are not.

It seems to me that at peak times, to make sure everything else runs correctly, P2P must run incredibly slowly for BB+ users - probably around the 1KBs that I've seen being reported or even slower. At that speed what is the point of trying to run it. You might as well totally block the protocol at peak times and be done with it - make it a change to the AUP/SUP, let people out of their one year contracts. Looking around some will find that rather than leaving they'd do better to upgrade and pay a realistic price for the usage they need.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Laser on November 22, 2006, 09:02:26 pm
I don't really want to stick a spanner in the works, but to be fair the BB+ package is what first attracted me to PlusNet. It appeared to offer the same or more as the Tiscali etc. deals, but from an ISP with a better reputation. I was originally quite happy, being by and large one of these despised users who just pootle about on the web and check my email. From that POV, PN's strategy worked fine.

Then we saw the degradation in performance. I don't just pootle. I sometimes up or download huuuuuge amounts of data, maybe as much as 3 or 4 MB :roll: over FTP to maintain external websites. When it got to requiring 20 minutes to do so, I figured a change was in order. (Especially if a, eg, printer manufacturer puts a 30MB driver on an FTP site. :( )

So now I'm on PAYG and agree entirely with everything else being said on the subject. I particularly don't understand why a PAYG account can do HTTP 10x faster than other traffic. They're my paid-for GB's, what difference does it make?

Still, I am not about to simply jump ship without some thought. 90% of the discussion about how much faster a given ISP is seems to be on the subject of P2P traffic. I do not want to find myself with a service where all the traffic is equally slow, albeit faster than the PN P2P speeds. I don't think PN are making up all of the traffic management justification!



Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: jelv1 on November 22, 2006, 10:51:13 pm
You sound like exactly the sort of person who should be on BB+. That you had to change to PAYG shows the extent to which they have lost the plot.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Tam on November 22, 2006, 11:00:38 pm
I'm impressed in the way that NeilArmstrong has managed to avoid answering any question that he doesn't like but continues to post.  :x



Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: neilarmstrong on November 23, 2006, 09:37:00 am
Hi there,
For your information I'm working with the networks team on a detailed Service Status and forum posting to explain all of this and will aim to answer all your questions in there so that all customers can benefit and not just those reading this forum. Expecting to have this drafted for PUG NDA members to feedback later this afternoon, ready for publishing sometime tomorrow.

PS - has everybody seen an improvement in FTP? See attached graphs which hopefully shows it's now fixed. Note big increases in traffic at midday two days ago and then compare the increases in speeds over the last few days.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Oldjim on November 23, 2006, 10:10:09 am
Somewhat puzzled - can anyone explain
Why are there significant peaks in silver ftp at approximately midday and midnight every day - I can understand the after midnight due to the free or off peak downloads starting surely it can't be only non business traffic at midday


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Firejack on November 23, 2006, 12:03:09 pm
PS - has everybody seen an improvement in FTP? See attached graphs which hopefully shows it's now fixed. Note big increases in traffic at midday two days ago and then compare the increases in speeds over the last few days.
Just uploaded a 1MB file to my site to test. Got 33KB/sec transfer speed. Much better the 1.07KB/sec I was getting last week :)

EDIT: Should add this was an external FTP site. Not a Plus.net one.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: mikeb on November 23, 2006, 12:27:51 pm
has everybody seen an improvement in FTP?

Nope not really, pretty much SNAFU here :(

The upload of a ~1MB test file to homepages.force9.net has just taken 03:16 with the usual one short burst of data every several seconds and huge long pauses of inactivity.  The same file DL'd took between 15 and 30 secs often with a similar erratic transfer rate and long(ish) pauses of inactivity.  Pretty good for a very lightly used 2M line ... NOT although I must say that DL is better than it has been for months as I generally get <<10kB/s at best.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: NB on November 23, 2006, 01:02:43 pm
Well I suppose 0.6k/s is an improvement over nothing at all. :roll:


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Simon Day on November 23, 2006, 01:04:06 pm
Hi Oldjim,

as you have stated the after-midnight surge is because that is when individual management comes off customers so their previously restricted downloads are no longer restricted and are let loose.

The one at midday is purely a natural traffic pattern.

Hope that helps

Simon


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: neilarmstrong on November 24, 2006, 08:43:03 am
Expecting to have this drafted for PUG NDA members to feedback later this afternoon, ready for publishing sometime tomorrow.

Quick update on this, am still working on the draft internally - planning to get to PUG this afternoon.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: hesketh14 on November 24, 2006, 03:08:34 pm
Hi wonder if anyone can advise??

I am on BB+, as I thought this would be the best package for me. I basically surf, send/receive E-Mails, and occ stream movie trailers, and download updates etc. This was fine up until recently, when at peak times, HTTP becomes at best  laggy, trying to download updates or other bits and bobs, the download speed is erratic at best, occ at line speed, more often than not around 150kbs. (Sync 6268kbps). Worse when that is when sites put updates on FTP sites, this is throttled to death. WOuld I be better on broadband PAYG, rather than plus, as my usual monthly usage is around 1-1.3Gb at most?? I have seriously considered moving suppliers. Also my parents are the same, on a fixed 1Mb package on BB+, and they do no real downloading at all, just suft, email, and webcam via MSN, to their daughter in china. Can anyone advise??


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on November 24, 2006, 03:20:32 pm
You clearly have nothing to lose given PAYG is the same price/month.

Also, if you do have speed issues these are inexcusable on PAYG if the problem is caused by bandwidth capacity problems on the PN network.

First though, type you phone number into this http://usertools.plus.net/exchanges/ and see if your exchange status is Red, if it is, then there is little PN can do about it, but it will be a cause fo poor speeds in the evenings and at weekends. :(

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: hesketh14 on November 24, 2006, 03:53:36 pm
Thanks Godsell. My exchange has been red for ages, but these problems have only come to light over the past 2-3weeks. I think its more to do with plus network capacity than exchnage status, although I am aware that exchange contention will cause some of these problems. I have been off work today, and sppeds have been fine for my profile, until around 2-3ish when downloads are erratic again. BBMax speedtester always shows speeds around the sppeds I would expect for my line profile, but speedtest.net appears to be unreliable now, and adsl guide shows around 2meg in the evening. Weekends, during the day is OK, but after around 9ish these problems reoccur, most times, except last sat, sppeds were perfect, sanday back to the same old same old. I will give PAYG a trial before I jump ship though and see how it goes.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Theo on November 24, 2006, 06:13:44 pm
I'm on PAYG and I've had no problems recently.  The last DL I tried came down really fast, 200kb/s I think.  I have a long line and the best sync speed I get is aboout 3000 downstream.

I've had all the same nonsense as everyone else with email to my default mailbox, but I moved my hosting and domains in August thank goodness.  I believe its best NOT to have everything from one supplier.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: hesketh14 on November 24, 2006, 06:14:08 pm
Hi

Just checked again and I am on Green, so the issues must be a plusnets end!!


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: DeadKenny on November 26, 2006, 06:02:00 pm
It seems to me that at peak times, to make sure everything else runs correctly, P2P must run incredibly slowly for BB+ users - probably around the 1KBs that I've seen being reported or even slower.
That's the kind of speed I get with P2P on Premier! In fact in peak hours I get near enough 0K/sec. My peak usage however is way under the limit (around 2 to 5Gb a month, for everything, not just P2P).

However I do notice that upstream levels with P2P seem to be untouched (so whilst everyone leeches from me, I get nothing in return).


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on November 27, 2006, 11:37:19 am
Quick update on this, am still working on the draft internally - planning to get to PUG this afternoon.

Is this information going to go out to the lowly fee paying customers today?

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: ianwild on November 27, 2006, 12:17:49 pm
Hopefully, yes - We had something ready on Friday, but we decided not to post it on the basis that we wouldn't be around to follow it up or clarify any misunderstandings (It's a detailed document, and there were a lot of questions when we published it to the PUG NDA guys).

There are a couple more updates to make now, but we are doing everything we can to get this out to customers today.

Cheers,

Ian


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: neilarmstrong on November 27, 2006, 01:26:27 pm
We're finshing this off at the moment to try and ensure we cover all of the questions asked by PUG members.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on November 27, 2006, 05:48:30 pm

Really polishing this tu*d till it is gleaming ?

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: wildmind on November 27, 2006, 06:07:39 pm
Not a particularly helpful nor required response there?

We saw a draft, which people were told we would, and it is a VERY comprehensive document. After reading it there were some additional questions (which is the point of us being shown it) so people are answering them before posting the update.

Would you prefer PN to simply say "An update will be out by wednesday" without people being aware that it is being proofread and that feedback is being considered?


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Oldjim on November 27, 2006, 06:49:12 pm
Announcement has now been made on the main forums - are we going to have it on here as well for the benefit of F9 and Metronet customers http://portal.plus.net/central/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51330


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: mikeb on November 27, 2006, 06:50:38 pm
cough - http://portal.plus.net/central/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51330 (http://portal.plus.net/central/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51330) - cough

Quote
Broadband Platform Traffic Management Ė UPDATE

Summary

This is an update to the previously reported problems relating to our broadband network management system. A copy of the previous posting can be seen here:-
http://usertools.plus.net/status/archive/1164017667.htm

[snipped]

Kind Regards,
_________________
Bob Pullen
Plusnet Customer Support
The smarter way to Broadband
http://usertools.plus.net

edit: pipped at the post ... just :)


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Colin on November 27, 2006, 06:55:07 pm
Announcement has now been made on the main forums - are we going to have it on here as well for the benefit of F9 and Metronet customers http://portal.plus.net/central/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51330

It is on the other portals.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: bpullen on December 01, 2006, 06:47:54 pm
Hi all,

Another announcement  (http://portal.plus.net/central/forums/viewtopic.php?p=381290#381290)has just gone out to the portal forums and I'm about to update SS.

Rgds,


Title: Lack of... Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: ptotea on December 05, 2006, 07:03:37 am
Hi - As a novice user I am not exactly sure what plusnet are trying to say other than the fact that the service is not as it seems. I have recently found that while my service from PlusNet seems interminably slow. My neighbours service (by another provider) is excellent. As we are both wireless I can log onto his system to access the internet and find a huge difference in download speeds.
Where I am downloading at a mere two to three kb with plusnet I can switch to my neighbours network and the same download runs at sixty to seventy KB.

The question is should I change over to his provider? On the face of it there seems to be no competition.

The second question is.... I purchased an uncapped service with unlimited bandwidth but find my service IS capped - where do I stand legally?

Three... What happened to the 30 to 1 maximum contention ratio I signed up for?

Am I alone with these problems?

Possibly the problems plusnet is experiencing is the crux of my problem but maybe someone can explain to me in lay terms what their problems are so that I can work out if MY problems are short term or not.

Regards....



Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: colizhoward on December 05, 2006, 09:21:40 pm
Mr Pullen,
Please can you tell the general user, in simple terms, and without all the jargon and TLA's just what is going on with Plus Net performance. It does not seem to be getting any better. The problems with being able to log on in the first place when using a simple USB router appear to be spreading and in some instances it is impossible for your customers to access the network for whole days or more. Tickets are not answered satisfactorily and it is still impossible to make contact by phone, just like in the summer.
Personally I have moved to using a wireless router and the connection issues have been mitigated as this stays on all the time, but my 85 year old father, who I persuaded to use PlusNet remains on a simple USB modem that is only powered when he is using the PC and hence finds that since early October when the (lack of)connection problems started he has been unable to make any sensible use of his connection without much frustration. As his "support engineer" operating from afar I too am finding it very difficult to help him solve the problems and we are both becoming increasingly fed up with PlusNet performance.
The speed issues that I experienced earlier in the summer remain unresolved and an "up to 8Mb" connection continues to operate at less than 10% of that value (typically 500Kb) even when BT and others say I should be able to get at least 3Mb
Your recent email to customers seemed to be operating in a different world from where we are.
 :-(


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: LC100 on December 07, 2006, 07:42:57 am
Hi

Quote
The speed issues that I experienced earlier in the summer remain unresolved and an "up to 8Mb" connection continues to operate at less than 10% of that value (typically 500Kb) even when BT and others say I should be able to get at least 3Mb

Have you tried connecting using a network cable to the router and running a speedtest?  Wireless and Windows XP run slow in a lot of cases unless you make some manual settings.

Quote
The problems with being able to log on in the first place when using a simple USB router appear to be spreading and in some instances it is impossible for your customers to access the network for whole days or more. Tickets are not answered satisfactorily and it is still impossible to make contact by phone, just like in the summer.

USB Modems typically give all sorts of problems and I will not touch them!  They are cheap for a reason and use your own PC for a lot of the processing which gives rise to plenty of opportunities for something on the PC to cause a conflict.  As you have found a router is more reliable and a lot more secure as well due to NAT and in most cases built in Firewalls. 

I would recommend testing your PlusNet account using a wired connection, if throughput is better come back here and let us know and there are ways to bring the wireless speed upto the same as the wired speed.

For your father consider buying him a new router as a Christmas present :)



 





Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: ianwild on December 07, 2006, 12:07:30 pm
Mr Pullen,
Please can you tell the general user, in simple terms, and without all the jargon and TLA's just what is going on with Plus Net performance. It does not seem to be getting any better. The problems with being able to log on in the first place when using a simple USB router appear to be spreading and in some instances it is impossible for your customers to access the network for whole days or more. Tickets are not answered satisfactorily and it is still impossible to make contact by phone, just like in the summer.
Personally I have moved to using a wireless router and the connection issues have been mitigated as this stays on all the time, but my 85 year old father, who I persuaded to use PlusNet remains on a simple USB modem that is only powered when he is using the PC and hence finds that since early October when the (lack of)connection problems started he has been unable to make any sensible use of his connection without much frustration. As his "support engineer" operating from afar I too am finding it very difficult to help him solve the problems and we are both becoming increasingly fed up with PlusNet performance.
The speed issues that I experienced earlier in the summer remain unresolved and an "up to 8Mb" connection continues to operate at less than 10% of that value (typically 500Kb) even when BT and others say I should be able to get at least 3Mb
Your recent email to customers seemed to be operating in a different world from where we are.
 :-(

Hi - Just wanted to answer a couple of things from this:

- I'm not aware of the widespread connection issues with USB modems you report (Although I'm not saying it isn't happening, it just isn't on my radar). There could be many causes of this, but I'm at a loss to pin the blame on one thing. What errors do people see here?

- I personally see the support team operating a lot more effectively now. We are not there yet, and I agree that there are still tickets that aren't getting good enough answers, however generally I'm seeing many fewer complaints than we were a few months ago, and call waiting times even following the improvements to our Auto-Attendant (Which made it a lot easier to talk to someone) the average waiting time is down by a lot. It's been rare to see it go above 25 mins this week, and often I've walked through the support centre and it's been below ten mins. That is in contrast to times in the last 6 months when waiting was over an hour. As we bring in more support staff from our graduation bay to mainstream support (We should have 19 more people on the phones by the end of this month than we had at the beginning of last month), this can only get better.

- In terms of speeds, it really is worth getting some more detail, because there are 3 or 4 reasons why you might be getting a poor speed. Depending on what is wrong we can either fix this easily, or at least advise about where the problem lies. It's all to easy to generalise and say that everything is PlusNet's fault, but that is only doing an disservice to yourself, when there could be an easy fix with a bit of sustained investigation.

Ian


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: neilarmstrong on December 07, 2006, 02:27:14 pm
Hi all,

Bob will be posting an updated Service Status shortly following the discovery of a significant issue in our implementation which has been hampering the work we've been doing to improve the experience over the last few weeks.

Also FYI have posted in the portal forums:
http://portal.plus.net/central/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51584&start=150


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: chesterfield on December 07, 2006, 02:27:32 pm
It really is quite remarkable just how many users have developed massive speed and latency issues all at the same time across the length and breadth of the country and all just happen to be connected to PN's network.

Please could you suggest some ways in which these issues can be resolved by the end users, and what we can do to prevent ourselves all making the same mistake at the same time again.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: bpullen on December 07, 2006, 04:34:03 pm
Service status has been posted here (http://usertools.plus.net/status/archive/1165508228.htm).

Kind Rgds,


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Oldjim on December 07, 2006, 04:45:53 pm
That is very informative if a bit worrying.
However one thing I am not clear about.
What is the priority given to P2P for PAYG users when it is being paid for.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on December 07, 2006, 05:36:13 pm

Have been led to believe in the past p2p is Silver on PAYG. So is Silver PAYG higher priority than Silver Premier?

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: fenlandbroadband on December 07, 2006, 06:26:25 pm
We are not there yet

No, we know.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: neilarmstrong on December 07, 2006, 06:44:37 pm
PAYG customers should be getting a better P2P peak experience than Premier and they clearly aren't at the moment which we will have fixed early next week. Off-peak it should be identical to Premier light users.

We're intending to publish on the website a matrix of how the protocols / products relate to each other so that everyone can see the relative priorities.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: fenlandbroadband on December 07, 2006, 06:47:07 pm
Why does/should a £14.99 (note: no extra GB allowance) PAYG user get a better experience than a £21.99 Premier user?


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Oldjim on December 07, 2006, 07:04:23 pm
Because after he has used 2GB he has to pay way over the odds for every extra GB


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: fenlandbroadband on December 07, 2006, 07:13:32 pm
I realise that, but until that person is paying £21.99/month or more, why should they get a better service than someone who is a "Premier" user?

I'm not saying that they shouldn't, but just questioning what Neil has said that "PAYG customers should be getting a better P2P peak experience than Premier".


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on December 07, 2006, 07:21:44 pm

A Premier user has the *potential* to cost PN a lot more than the amount being paid for. PAYG is more profitable for PN.

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Oldjim on December 07, 2006, 07:31:20 pm
That is an interesting point but a much better question is what about the PAYG special offer users who get to download a comparatively large amount with presumably the same priority. Or is the PAYG special offer on different priority to the normal PAYG - as far I can remember the special offer gives a 15GB usage limit for £19.99 which would cost the normal PAYG user £25.49


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: ian h on December 07, 2006, 08:15:04 pm
My guess would be that PN have worked out how much bandwidth the average PAYG user consumes, and then simply created an offer that makes it economical for PN.
I read earlier that user uptake is flat at the moment, so PN need to create offers to attract new users who won't consume vast amounts of bandwidth i.e. like a 15 Gb special offer for PAYG users.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Laser on December 08, 2006, 01:16:34 pm
I realise that, but until that person is paying £21.99/month or more, why should they get a better service than someone who is a "Premier" user?
If you are a premier customer, ask yourself why you are not on a PAYG account. If your average monthly use would cost you more than the £21.99 you pay now, the "premier" package is not as "expensive" as the PAYG one.

On the other hand, you may be asking "why should specifically P2P traffic be better for PAYG on-peak?" The answer to that lies in whatever your beliefs are about whether traffic type prioritisation is acceptable. Most of the arguments in favour of it (i.e. peak time capacity cannot be as big as it needs to be so something has to slow down) lose some of their merit in a PAYG model since traffic used is, to a larger extent, being paid for and wont be used at some other time. A price model with a cap above the real cost relies on some of that use being "free", either by you not using it or by using at at a time when the network would have been idle. The prioritisation would therefore encourage you to follow that desired behaviour.

Personally I'd like to see sufficient bandwidth in place such that when the shaping kicks in it isn't dreadful on any protocol (say 256kbps at absolute worst), and the packages sold with clear peak/off-peak limits that make this viable. If a package is going to get a smaller fraction of the pot (eg PAYG P2P might temporarily get as bad as 512k at peak, whereas BB+ might go to 256k) then this should be clearly indicated as a "network priority" thing and priced accordingly. This whole thing with hoping customers statistically balance out just doesn't work nowadays where too many "average" users sit with a P2P server running (legal or otherwise) and streaming video from websites. Net habits have changed. :|



Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: fenlandbroadband on December 08, 2006, 02:10:52 pm
I realise that, but until that person is paying £21.99/month or more, why should they get a better service than someone who is a "Premier" user?
If you are a premier customer, ask yourself why you are not on a PAYG account.

Or even ask myself when I'm still a customer of PlusNet's.

A PAYG account would probably be fine for me. Especially with the "unlimited off-peak usage" that PAYG users get. Only possible downside that I can see is that there aren't as many (any?) free 01/02 UK Landline calls included, but then with PlusTalk so unreliable maybe that doesn't matter either.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on December 08, 2006, 02:31:33 pm
Especially with the "unlimited off-peak usage" that PAYG users get.

I have to say that I was suprised when PN announced this for those on PAYG as it is contrary to the concept of PAYG, especially if as I understand with CBC it means PN are charged per GB of data transferred by BT.

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: pjmarsh on December 08, 2006, 02:50:02 pm
I think you are getting confused with Usage Based Charging (UBC).  With CBC the provider buys pipes of BT, and pay exactly the same weather they cram them full or leave them empty.

Phil


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on December 08, 2006, 03:07:45 pm

Aaaaahhhh, Yep that'll be it, and so explains a lot with regards to how the 'off peak' usage is in fact all paid for .. kind'a.

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: pjmarsh on December 08, 2006, 03:46:00 pm
The point of having the unmetered off peak is to encourage some people to move their downloads from the busier times to the quieter times.  ISP's need to buy their capacity to meet the peak requirments.  There is plenty of 'waste' off peak.

Phil


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Laser on December 08, 2006, 05:03:00 pm
And in fairness it would pretty much work with me.  :-P

If I knew I wanted a one-off 500MB+ download, being on a PAYG package I'd wait until off-peak to get it "free". Which is exactly what PN want, so we're all happy.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on December 11, 2006, 08:57:56 pm

So whats next? The aim for zero packet drop on Gold has not happened. It hit 100/s on Sunday and is at +400/s as I write this message.

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on December 11, 2006, 10:15:51 pm

I have to ask some questions.

This thread was started on Nov/16th. Really there has been no stable improvement in this situation at peak times.

Apart from start a thread to collect information from people. What is PUG doing? I really hope you have more information about this than is being made available and have some confidence the root causes for the problems are understood and being rectified.

I am hoping wildmind or kitz can give a wink or nod on this subject.

It will not be long before I start a thread on the main portal asking for mass rebates/refunds. The service I am paying for is not of Satisfactory Quality.

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: portmoak on December 12, 2006, 10:17:58 am
It will not be long before I start a thread on the main portal asking for mass rebates/refunds. The service I am paying for is not of Satisfactory Quality.

Does anyone know of a reasonable definition of 'merchantable quality' as regards an ISP?


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on December 12, 2006, 11:42:34 am

It is simpler than you think, it is a matter of comparing products from different vendors that are of a similar price and specification, and then finding out how well do they perform compared to each other. Another option is to look at the other products from the same vendor, e.g. Premier 1, 2 and 3 accounts, and then find out how well they perform comapred to each other. If you found that Premier3 really was no better then Option1 or PAYG, you might argue you are getting no apparent benefit for paying the full cost of Premier3.

A food example is always good, just before lunch time.

If you get a burger from the best burger shop in the whole UK for £10/burger, and if MacDonalds claimed to have the same and charged £10, and it became obvious the MacDonalds £10 burger was the same as MacDonalds £2 burger offering, you would rightfully get a refund ... or better, go  elsewhere and get MacDonalds to pay for the £10 burger from elsewhere.

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on December 13, 2006, 05:47:29 pm

todays update ... http://usertools.plus.net/status/archive/1166030333.htm

SW


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Laser on December 13, 2006, 09:51:44 pm
I'm a fairly low use PAYG customer and my peak-time speeds have been much better over the last 2-3 days than they have been for a long while. :-D

I just hope it lasts!  :-P



Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on January 10, 2007, 11:53:27 pm

Seems all gateways have some level of Gold packet drops. Is this a 'reporting error' as we like to call them or a real issue?

If the latter, what is the action being taken?

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: jelv1 on January 11, 2007, 12:35:46 am
May be today's service status announcement signals something is actually being done - we can only hope.

Quote
We will be conducting a live test on our newly installed Juniper E320 core ADSL router (thn-ag2). This will involve connecting a small number of broadband customers via this gateway to check routing and perform a number of diagnostic checks.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: jelv1 on January 11, 2007, 12:32:18 pm
Oh drat, I've just found out that my PAYG account is going to cost me 50p a month more from now on.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: jelv1 on January 11, 2007, 02:07:04 pm
May be today's service status announcement signals something is actually being done - we can only hope.

Quote
We will be conducting a live test on our newly installed Juniper E320 core ADSL router (thn-ag2). This will involve connecting a small number of broadband customers via this gateway to check routing and perform a number of diagnostic checks.

Come on lets have more on this - does this portend some good news?


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Jaowon on January 11, 2007, 02:27:48 pm
Can I opt out of any testing please. I'd rather be subjected to systems that have been tested.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: NB on January 11, 2007, 09:27:43 pm
May be today's service status announcement signals something is actually being done - we can only hope.

Quote
We will be conducting a live test on our newly installed Juniper E320 core ADSL router (thn-ag2). This will involve connecting a small number of broadband customers via this gateway to check routing and perform a number of diagnostic checks.

Come on lets have more on this - does this portend some good news?

Mabye, or mabye not? (http://www.plusnetters.co.uk/forums//viewtopic.php?t=961)


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on January 14, 2007, 11:20:48 am

Suggestion.

The graphs on http://www.plus.net/support/network_performance/broadband_packets_drop.shtml?supporta=networkpbroadbandpackets are updated every 30mins.

Given the load balancing problems, and the 'reporting errors' that sometimes send these graphs a little haywire.

Could there be a column added to these. As well as Max and Avg, could there be a Recent column to show 'the peak value in the last 30mins' This would be useful for those of us having to gateway hop.

regards,
SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: jelv1 on January 14, 2007, 11:35:56 am
What an excellent idea. It would also allow for the occasions when the graphs get messed up by a failure which gives a meaningless graph with a massive peak.

If it's not possible to incorporate this in to the graph, how about a separate html table? E.g. (very rough with no formatting)


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on January 18, 2007, 01:46:00 pm

In ticket 21091255, which relates to gaming problems I have ...
Quote
As I stated, all gaming traffic is set to titanium at all times. I realise that your profile was previously set incorrectly so that your gaming traffic was classed as gold, but it is now titanium as I set it to titanium.

I have had this issue open since Sept/7th. And I am pretty sure 'my profile' has been tweaked on and off titanium since that date.

Quote
As I have stated, our network is very congested at the moment which can result in less than optimal speeds, we are looking into reprofiling our traffic flows to give a better balance and are also investigating getting another pipe that will increase our total bandwidth. We expect some of these improvements to be made in the next week.

Then I get the quote above. Surely, it does not matter how congested the pipes are, but if traffic is titanium it will pass through at full speed and Gold/Silver/Bronze will be dropped.

I am requesting to try the titanium only profile for a short time to test this over the weekend, but no joy so far.

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: jelv1 on January 23, 2007, 11:48:31 am
It's looking increasingly like my problems with VPN only occur when there are Gold packets being dropped. However it's not easy to confirm that because the graphs of drops by gateway are so difficult (if not totally impossible) to interpret for what the situation is NOW (or at least in the last half hour).

Talking to James the other day, he doesn't have access to anything that shows that.

As data is extracted from the Gateways every half hour, surely it would not be difficult to add a table along the lines I suggested two posts back.

Edit: I've submitted the idea to PUGIT - waiting for a number


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: jelv1 on January 24, 2007, 11:04:10 pm
PUGIT: Id 266 (http://usergroup.plus.net/pugit/view.php?id=266)

It doesn't make it clear that I was suggesting that the counts for the last half hour should be shown as per the suggestion by godsell4 above.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: biondani on January 24, 2007, 11:09:47 pm
I have added a comment for this Jelv.

Ian


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: XPC exiled in NZ on January 26, 2007, 03:48:18 am
 Dropsexample.jpg (35.32 KB, 267x173 - viewed 47 times.)

"drop sex ample.jpg" :-o

Not sure you should be posting pictures like on a family forum!  :wink: :-P


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: jelv1 on January 26, 2007, 09:35:21 am
Probably not the the best name I could have chosen!


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on January 28, 2007, 06:54:32 pm

Is ptn-ag2 sick at the moment. bbmax gave me a very variable speed result of upto 900-1400kb/s, then jumped over to pte-ag2 and I get 2.4Mb.

Still living in load balancing hell at PN. Lets look at the colour of balls on noc.enta.net ... seems tempting.

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Oldjim on January 28, 2007, 07:35:58 pm
Confirm ptn-ag2 appears to be very sick.
BBMax 1323 kbps
Speedtest.net 1142 kbps
BT Speedtester   
Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
    IP profile for your line is - 3500 kbps
    DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)  4000 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
    Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 2940 kbps


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Oldjim on January 28, 2007, 09:08:01 pm
Just got 3500kbps on BBmax <<typo corrected>> - must be everyone watching TopGear and Hammond's crash or worse still Celebrity Big Brother - The Final


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: Ultra on January 28, 2007, 09:27:46 pm
Wouldn't know what's on TV - certainly those might be diversions for some - I was watching Lisa Lampanelli (http://imdb.com/name/nm1800369/) - one of the most anti-PC American comics I've ever heard.   She (and a bunch of others) were on a Comedy Central show - Roasting of William Shatner (http://imdb.com/title/tt0840305/) which was on rather late a few weeks back...  Although I'm sure Lisa is not to everyone's taste, she had me laughing for the full hour.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: dtomlinson on January 28, 2007, 11:58:40 pm
Hi,

The network has been a bit out of balance this weekend, a number of customers on PTN-AG2 were disconnected yesterday putting that gateway down compared to the others. Consequently when people have connected today they are all hitting PTN-AG2 so we then have an inbalance in active users compared to idle customers.

As for 8-9pm or thereabouts then I'd almost definately be inclined to agree that Top Gear and Big Brother have had an impact on the number of people online.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on January 29, 2007, 08:37:05 am

I do not understand.  :|

We are told the connection proces is round robin style so why would this happen? Also, if lots of people are dropped from ptn-ag2, and then reconnetced randomly to the other gateways the on average the number of people connected to ptn-ag2 has lowered meaning lower contention on that gateway. Or ... PN was out of available sessions?

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: godsell4 on January 29, 2007, 10:00:31 pm

Is is just me or have all gateways become full from 20:00 to 22:00 tonight, i get no more than 1.5Mb on bbmax, of course I have tried for 60mins and failed to connect to the BT speed test.

SW.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: mr_chris on January 30, 2007, 08:11:00 am
My speeds were pretty sluggish last night too, on HTTP with a zillion threads running I could only get about 3Mbps max (on a 6.5Mbps IP profile line)


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: dgdclynx on January 30, 2007, 08:19:57 am
I noticed I was getting 1.1MB on a 3.5MB connection at 10 o'clock. Also I never seem to get more than 3MB in quiet times when I would expect 3.3MB.


Title: Re: Broadband Platform Traffic Management
Post by: dtomlinson on January 30, 2007, 02:33:17 pm
We are told the connection proces is round robin style so why would this happen?

It happens because it's round robin rather than least used. Remember that over time people will disconnect and reconnect. Lots of people with USB modems will just connect in an evening for a few hours. So imagine that the following happens.

We start off with the platform in good balance and then a large number of customers are disconnected from one gateway. If that happens early in the day or overnight (off peak) then the proportion of customers that just connect for a few hours a day rather than being connected all the time will be lower than if it was at peak time.

Because most of the disconnected people have routers they will reconnect straight away but rather than being put back on the gateway they just came from they reconnect across all four gateways.

This then puts the network out of balance because there are more people connected on three of the gateways than the fourth. It also means that when the people that just start connecting in an evening connect most of them are hitting the gateway where everyone disconnected from because a lot of the tunnels on the other three will be full.

You then get a two-fold of problems. Because some of the tunnels on the three gateways are full, some these, where there are a lot of active customers, will see gold drops whereas other tunnels perhaps won't because they are full of idle customers (and active customers can't connect to these "idle" tunnels) whereas most of the people on the other gateway are all active so again some of these tunnels will see gold drops because of the idle/active balance.


Quote
Also, if lots of people are dropped from ptn-ag2, and then reconnetced randomly to the other gateways the on average the number of people connected to ptn-ag2 has lowered meaning lower contention on that gateway. Or ... PN was out of available sessions?

Remember that you can't measure the gateway as a whole, but as twelve 52Mbps tunnels. Only one of those tunnels needs to be full of active customers for traffic to drop and if it's full of enough customers using gold traffic then you may see gold drops on this tunnel. There may not be any drops on the rest of the tunnels on that 622, but gold drops will still show up on the graph because of that one tunnel.