On Fri, 12 Jun 2015, Benjamin Cronce wrote:
On 12/06/15 02:44, David Lang wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
On Jun 11, 2015, at 03:05 , Alan Jenkins
<alan.christopher.jenkins at gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/15 21:54, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
One solution would be if ISPs made sure upload is 100% provisioned.
Could be cheaper than for (the higher rate) download.
Not going to happen, in my opinion, as economically unfeasible
for a publicly traded ISP. I would settle for that approach as long
as the ISP is willing to fix its provisioning so that
oversubscription episodes are reasonable rare, though.
not going to happen on any network, publicly traded or not.
Sorry if this is a tangent from where the current discussion has gone, but
I wanted to correct someone saying something is "impossible".
<snip>
I guess I went off on this tangent because "Not going to happen, in my
opinion, as economically unfeasible" and "not going to happen on any
network, publicly traded or not." are too absolute. It can be done, it is
being done, it is being done for cheap, and being done with "business
class" professionalism. Charter Comm is 1/2 the download speed for the same
price and they don't even have symmetrical or dedicated.
not being oversubscribed includes the trunk. Who cares if there is no congestion
within the ISP if you reach the trunk and everything comes to a screeching halt.
The reason I used the word "imossible" is because we only have the ability to
make links so fast. Right now we have 10G common, 40G in places, and research
into 100G, if you go back a few years, 1G was the limit. While the fastest
connections have increased by a factor of 100, the home connections have
increased by close to a factor of 1000 during that time (1.5Mb theoretical DSL
vs 1Gb fiber), and 10G is getting cheap enough to be used for the corporate
networks.
so the ratio between the fastest link that's possible and the subscribers has
dropped from 1000:1 to 100:1 with 10:1 uncomfortably close.
some of this can be covered up by deploying more lines, but that only goes so
far.
If you are trying to guarantee no bandwidth limits on your network under any
conditions, you need that sort of bandwith between all possible sets of
customers as well, which means that as you scale to more customers, your
bandwidth requirements are going up O(n^2).
And then the pricing comes into it. 1G fiber to the home is <$100/month (if it
exists at all) isn't going to pay for that sort of idle bandwidth.
But the good thing is, you don't actually need that much bandwidth to keep your
customer's happy either.
If the 'guaranteed bandwidth' is written into the contracts properly, there is a
penalty to the company if they can't provide you the bandwidth. That leaves them
the possibility of not actually building out the O(n^2) network, just keeping
ahead of actual reqirements, and occasionally paying a penalty if they don't.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
