On Dec 6, 2013 5:16 PM, "Michael Thomas" <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > > On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> >> >> I realize most of the NANOG operators are not running end user networks anymore. Real consumption data: >> >> Monthly_GB Count Percent >> <100GB 3658 90% >> 100-149 368 10% >> 150-199 173 4.7% >> 200-249 97 2.6% >> 250-299 50 1.4% >> 300-399 27 0.7% >> 400-499 9 0.25% >> 500-599 4 0.1% >> 600-699 4 0.1% >> 700-799 3 0.1% >> >800 1 0.03% >> >> Overall average: 36GB/mo >> >> >> The user at 836MB per month is on a 3.5Mbps plan paying $49.95/mo. Do we do anything about it? No - because our current AUP and policies say he can do that. >> > > Thanks for the stats, real life is always refreshing :) > > It seems to me -- all things being equal -- that the real question is whether Mr. Hog is impacting your > other users. If he's not, then what difference does it make if he consumes the bits, or if the bits over > the air are not consumed at all? Is it because of transit costs? That seems unlikely because Mr. Hog's > 800gb is dwarfed by your 3658*36gb (almost three orders of magnitude). > > If he is impacting other users, doesn't this devolve into a shaping problem which is there regardless > of whether it's him or 4 people at 200GB? > > Mike >
In a cell network, mr. Hog is most definately negatively impacting users on the same radio sector and backhaul, both of which are dimensioned and operated (like the internet as a whole) on statistical multiplexing. If mr hog is blasting 50mbs on a 100meg link 24/7, nobody will perceive 100mbs since 50mbs is always consumed by mr hog. Statistical multiplexing works great 99% of the time, and i personally would rather not engineer the whole system to fight the 1% extreme users CB
