Pros and Cons of Using Your Router as a Bandwidth Controller

January 30, 2011 — netequalizer

So, you already have a router in your network, and rather than take on the expense of another piece of equipment, you want to double-up on functionality by implementing your bandwidth control within your router. While this is sound logic and may be your best decision, as always, there are some other factors to consider.

Here are a few things to think about:

1. Routers are optimized to move packets from one network to another with utmost efficiency. To do this function, there is often minimal introspection of the data, meaning the router does one table look-up and sends the data on its way. However, as soon as you start doing some form of bandwidth control, your router now must perform a higher-level of analysis on the data. Additional analysis can overwhelm a router’s CPU without warning. Implementing non-routing features, such as protocol sniffing, can create conditions that are much more complex than the original router mission. For simple rate limiting there should be no problem, but if you get into more complex bandwidth control, you can overwhelm the processing power that your router was designed for.

2. The more complex the system, the more likely it is to lock up. For example, that old analog desktop phone set probably never once crashed. It was a simple device and hence extremely reliable. On the other hand, when you load up an IP phone on your Windows PC,  you will reduce reliability even though the function is the same as the old phone system. The problem is that your Windows PC is an unreliable platform. It runs out of memory and buggy applications lock it up.

This is not news to a Windows PC owner, but the complexity of a mission will have the same effect on your once-reliable router. So, when you start loading up your router with additional missions, it is increasingly more likely that it will become unstable and lock up. Worse yet, you might cause a subtle network problem (intermittent slowness, etc.) that is less likely to be identified and fixed. When you combine a bandwidth controller/router/firewall together, it can become nearly impossible to isolate problems.

3. Routing with TOS bits? Setting priority on your router generally only works when you control both ends of the link. This isn’t always an option with some technology. However, products such as the NetEqualizer can supply priority for VoIP in both directions on your Internet link.

4. A stand-alone bandwidth controller can be  moved around your network or easily removed without affecting routing. This is possible because a bandwidth controller is generally not a routable device but rather a transparent bridge. Rearranging your network setup may not be an option, or simply becomes much more difficult, when using your router for other functions, including bandwidth control.

These four points don’t necessarily mean using a router for bandwidth control isn’t the right option for you. However, as is the case when setting up any network, the right choice ultimately depends on your individual needs. Taking these points into consideration should make your final decision on routing and bandwidth control a little easier.

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Commentary and Editorials. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

How to Determine a Comprehensive ROI for Bandwidth Shaping Products

January 9, 2011 — netequalizer

In the past, we’ve published several articles on our blog to help customers better understand the NetEqualizer’s potential return on investment (ROI). Obviously, we do this because we think we offer a compelling ROI proposition for most bandwidth-shaping decisions. Why? Primarily because we provide the benefits of bandwidth shaping at a a very low cost — both initially and even more so over time. (Click here for the NetEqualizer ROI calculator.)

But, we also want to provide potential customers with the questions that need to be considered before a product is purchased, regardless of whether or not the answers lead to the NetEqualizer. With that said, this article will break down these questions, addressing many issues that may not be obvious at first glance, but are nonetheless integral when determining what bandwidth shaping product is best for you.

First, let’s discuss basic ROI. As a simple example, if an investment cost $100, and if in one year that investment returned $120, the ROI is 20 percent.  Simple enough. But what if your investment horizon is five years or longer? It gets a little more complicated, but suffice it to say you would perform a similar calculation for each year while adjusting these returns for time and cost.

The important point is that this technique is a well-known calculation for evaluating whether one thing is a better investment than another — be it bandwidth shaping products or real estate. Naturally and obviously the best financial decision will be determined by the greatest return for the smallest cost.

The hard part is determining what questions to ask in order to accurately determine the ROI. A missed cost or benefit here or there could dramatically alter the outcome, potentially leading to significant unforeseen losses.

For the remainder of this article, I’ll discuss many of the potential costs and returns associated with bandwidth shaping products, with some being more obscure than others. In the end, it should better prepare you to address the most important questions and issues and ultimately lead to a more accurate ROI assessment.

Let’s start by looking at the largest components of bandwidth shaping product “costs” and whether they are one-time or ongoing. We’ll then consider the returns.

COSTS

  • The initial cost of the tool
    • This is a one-time cost.
  • The cost of vendor support and license updates
    • These are ongoing costs and include monthly and annual licenses for support, training, software updates, library updates, etc…  The difference from vendor to vendor can be significant — especially over the long run.
  • The cost of upgrades within the time horizon of the investment
    • These upgrades can come in several different forms. For example, what does it cost to go from a 50Mbs tool to 100Mbs? Can your tool be upgraded, or do you have to buy a whole new tool? This can be a one-time cost or it can occur several times. It really depends on the growth of your network, but it’s usually inevitable for networks of any size.
  • The internal (human) cost to support the tool
    • For example, how many man hours do you have to spend to maintain the tool, to optimize it and to adapt it to your changing network? This could be a considerable “hidden” cost and it’s generally recurring. It also usually increases in time as the cost of salaries/benefits tend to go up. Because of that, this is a very important component that should be quantified for a good ROI analysis. Tools that require little or no ongoing maintenance will have a large advantage.
  • Overall impact on the network
    • Does the product add latency or other inefficiencies? Does it create any processing overhead and how much? If the answer is yes, costs such as these will constantly impact your network quality and add up over time.

RETURNS

  • Savings from being able to delay or eliminate buying more bandwidth
    • This could either be a one-time or ongoing return. Even delaying a bandwidth upgrade for six months or a year can be highly valuable.
  • Savings from not losing existing revenue sources
    • How many customers did you not lose because they did not get frustrated with their network/Internet service? This return is ongoing.
  • Ability to generate new revenue
    • How many new customers did you add because of a better-maintained network?  Were you able to generate revenue by adding new higher-value services like a tiered rate structure? This will usually be an ongoing return.
  • Savings from the ability eliminate or reduce the financial impact of unprofitable customers
    • This is an ongoing savings. Can you convert an unprofitable customer to a profitable one by reducing their negative impact on the network? If not, and they walk, do you care?
  • Avoidance of having to buy additional equipment
    • Were you able to avoid having to “divide and conquer” by buying new access points, splitting VLANs, etc..? This can be a one-time or ongoing return.
  • Savings in the cost of responding to technical support calls
    • How much time was saved by not having to receive an irate customer call, research it and respond back? If this is something you typically deal with on a regular basis, the savings will add up every day, week or month this is avoided.

Overall, these issues are the basic financial components and questions that need to be quantified to make a good ROI analysis. For each business, and each tool, this type of analysis may yield a different answer, but it is important to note that over time there are many more items associated with ongoing costs/savings than those occurring only once. Thus, you must take great care to understand the impact of these for each tool, especially those issues that lead to costs that increase over time.

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Educational Articles, ROI. Tags: , , , . 2 Comments »

The 10-Gigabit Barrier for Bandwidth Controllers and Intel-Based Routers

December 5, 2010 — netequalizer

By Art Reisman

Editor’s note: This article was adapted from our answer to a NetEqualizer pre-sale question asked by an ISP that was concerned with its upgrade path. We realized the answer was useful in a broader sense and decided to post it here.

Any router, bandwidth controller, or firewall that is based on Intel architecture and buses will never be able to go faster than about about 7 gigabits sustained. (This includes our NE4000 bandwidth controller. While the NE4000 can actually reach speeds close to 10 gigabits, we rate our equipment for five gigabits because we don’t like quoting best-case numbers to our customers.) The limiting factor in Intel architecture is that to expand beyond 10-gigabit speeds you cannot be running with a central clock. Therefore, with a central clock controlling the show, it is practically impossible to move data around much faster than 10 gigabits.

The alternative is to use a specialized asynchronous design, which is what faster switches and hardware do. They have no clock or centralized multiprocessor/bus. However, the price point for such hardware quickly jumps to 5-10 times the Intel architecture because it must be custom designed. It is also quite limited in function once released.

Obviously, vendors can stack a bunch of 10-gig fiber bandwidth controllers behind a switch and call it something faster, but this is no different from dividing up your network paths and using multiple bandwidth controllers yourself.  So, be careful when assessing the claims of other manufacturers in this space.

Considering these limitations, many cable operators here in the US have embraced the 10-gigabit barrier. At some point you must divide and conquer using multiple 10-gig fiber links and multiple NE4000 type boxes, which we believe is really the only viable plan — that is if you want any sort of sophistication in your bandwidth controller.

While there are some that will keep requesting giant centralized boxes, and paying a premium for them (it’s in their blood to think single box, central location), when you think about the Internet, it only works because it is made of many independent paths. There is no centralized location by design. However, as you approach 10-gigabit speeds in your organization, it might be time to stop thinking “single box.”

I went through this same learning curve as a system architect at AT&T Bell Labs back in the 1990s.  The sales team was constantly worried about how many telephone ports we could support in one box because that is what operators were asking for.  It shot the price per port through the roof with some of our designs. So, in our present case, we (NetEqualizer) decided not to get into that game because we believe that price per megabit of shaping will likely win out in the end.

Art Reisman is currently CTO and co-founder of APconnections, creator of the NetEqualizer. He  has worked at several start-up companies over the years and has invented and brought several technology products to market, both on his own and with the backing of larger corporations. This includes tools for the automotive industry.

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Educational Articles, Network Capacity. Tags: , . 1 Comment »

Analyzing the cost of Layer 7 Packet Shaping

November 16, 2010 — netequalizer

November, 2010

By Eli RIles

For most IT administrators layer 7 packet shaping involves two actions.

Action 1:  Involves inspecting and analyzing data to determine what types of traffic are on your network.

Action 2: Involves taking action by adjusting application  flows on your network .

Without  the layer 7 visibility and actions,  an administrator’s job would degrade into a quagmire of random guesswork. Or would it?

Layer 7 monitoring and shaping is intuitively appealing , but it is a good idea to take a step back and break down examine the full life cycle costs of your methodology .

In an ironic inverse correlation, we assert that costs increase with the complexity of the monitoring tool.

1) Obviously, the more detailed the reporting tool (layer 7 ) , the more expensive its initial price tag.

2)  The kicker comes with part two. The more expensive the tool, the more  detail  it will provide, and the more time an administrator is likely to spend adjusting and mucking, looking for optimal performance.

But, is it a fair to assume higher labor costs with  more advanced monitoring and information?

Well, obviously it would not make sense to pay more for an advanced tool if there was no intention of doing anything with the detailed information it provides. Why have the reporting tool in the first place if the only output was to stare at reports and do nothing? Typically, the more information an admin has about a network, the more inclined he might be to spend time making adjustments.

On a similar note, an oversight often made with labor costs is the belief  that when  the work needed to adjust the network comes to fruition, the associated adjustments can remain statically in place. However, in reality, network traffic changes constantly, and thus the tuning so meticulously performed on Monday may be obsolete by Friday.

Does this mean that the overall productivity of using a bandwidth tool is a loss? Not at all. Bandwidth monitoring and network mucking can certainly result in a cost-effective solution. But, where is the tipping point? When does a monitoring solution create more costs than it saves?

A review of recent history reveals that technologies with a path similar to bandwidth monitoring have become commodities and shunned the overhead of most human intervention.  For example, computer operators disappeared off the face of the earth with the invention of cheaper computing in the late 1980′s.  The function of a computer operator did not disappear completely, it just got automated and rolled into the computer itself. The point is, anytime the cost of a resource is falling, the attention and costs used to manage it should be revisited.

An effective compromise with many of our customers is that they are stepping down from expensive complex reporting tools to a simpler approach. Instead of trying to determine every type of traffic on a network by type, time of day, etc., an admin can spot trouble by simply checking overall usage numbers once a week or so. With a basic bandwidth control solution in place (such as a NetEqualizer), the acute problems of a network locking up will go away, leaving what we would call only “chronic” problems, which may need to be addressed eventually, but do not require immediate action.

For example, with a simple reporting tool you can plot network usage by user.  Such a report, although limited in detail, will often reveal a very distinct bell curve of usage behavior. Most users will be near the mean, and then there are perhaps one or two percent of users that will be well above the mean. You don’t need a fancy tool to see what they are doing; abuse becomes obvious just looking at the usage (a simple report).

However, there is also the personal control factor, which often does not follow clear lines of ROI (return on investment).

What we have experienced when proposing a more hands-off model to network management is that a customer’s comfort depends on their bias for needing to know, which is an unquantifiable personal preference. Even in a world where bandwidth is free, it is still human nature to want to know specifically what bandwidth is being used for, with detailed information regarding the type of traffic. There is nothing wrong with this desire, but we wonder how strong it might be if the savings obtained from using simpler monitoring tools were converted into a trip to Hawaii.

In our next article, we’ll put some real world numbers to the test for actual break downs, so stay tuned. In the mean time, here are some other articles on bandwidth monitoring that we recommend. And, don’t forget to take our poll.

List of monitoring tools compiled by Stanford

Top five free monitoring tools

Planetmy
Linux Tips
How to set up a monitor for free

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Commentary and Editorials, ROI. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

Bandwidth Control Return on Investment (ROI) Calculator

October 13, 2010 — netequalizer

Are you looking to justify the cost of purchasing a bandwidth control device for your Internet or WAN link? Our ROI calculator is Industry neutral, click here to see custom results based on your network.

Aside from our customers’ comments about the overall improvement in their network performance, one of the most common remarks we hear from NetEqualizer users concerns the technology’s positive return on investment (ROI).

However, it’s also one of the most common questions we get from potential customers – How will the NetEqualizer benefit my bottom line?

To better answer this question, we recently interviewed NetEqualizer customers from across several verticals to get their best estimates of the cost savings and value associated with their NetEqualizer. We compiled their answers into a knowledge base that we now use to estimate reasonable ROI calculations.

Our calculations are based on real data and were done conservatively as not to create false promises. There are plenty of congested Internet links suffering out there every day, and hence there is more than enough value with the NetEqualizer. So, we did not need to exaggerate.

ROI calculations were based on the following:

  1. Savings in Bandwidth Costs – Stay at your current bandwidth level or delay future upgrades.
  2. Reduced Labor and Support Costs – Avoid Internet congestion issues that lead to support calls during peak usage times.
  3. Retention of Customers – Stop losing customers, clients, and guests because of unreliable or unresponsive Internet service (applies to ISPs and operators such as hotels and executive suites).
  4. Addition of New Customers – Put more users on your link than before while keeping them all happy.

To see what the NetEqualizer can do for you, visit http://www.netequalizer.com

Other ROI calculators

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Educational Articles, ROI. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

QoS Over The Internet – Is it possible? Five Must-Know Facts

August 29, 2010 — netequalizer

I had an inquiry from a potential customer yesterday asking if we could monitor their QoS. I was a bit miffed as to what to tell them. At first, the question struck me as if they’d asked if we can monitor electrons on their power grid. In other words, it was a legitimate question in a sense, but of what use would it be to monitor QoS? I then asked him why he had implemented QoS in the first place. How did he know he needed it?

After inquiring a bit deeper, I also found out this customer was using extensive VPNs to remote offices over DSL internet circuits. His WAN traffic from the remote offices was sharing links with regular Internet data traffic, and all of it was traversing the public Internet. Then it hit me – he did not realize his QoS mechanisms were useless outside of his internal network.

Where there is one customer with confusion there are usually others. Hence, I’ve put together a quick fact sheet on QoS over an internet link. Below, you’ll find five quick facts that should help clarify QoS and answer the primary question of it’s possible over the Internet.

Fact #1

If your QoS mechanism involves modifying packets with special instructions (ToS bits) on how it should be treated, it will only work on links where you control both ends of the circuit and everything in between.

Fact #2

Most Internet congestion is caused by incoming traffic. For data originating at your facility, you can certainly have your local router give priority to it on its way out, but you can’t set QoS bits on traffic coming into your network (We assume  from a third party). Regulating outgoing traffic with ToS  bits will not have any effect on incoming traffic.

Fact #3

Your public Internet provider will not treat ToS bits with any form of priority (The exception would be a contracted MPLS type network). Yes, they could, but if they did then everybody would game the system to get an advantage and they would not have much meaning anyway.

Fact #4

The next two facts address our initial question — Is QoS over the Internet possible? The answer is, yes, QoS on an Internet link is possible. We have spent the better part of seven years practicing this art form and it is not rocket science, but it does require a philosophical shift in thinking to get your arms around.

We call it “equalizing,” or behavior-based shaping, and it involves monitoring incoming and outgoing streams on your Internet link.  Priority or QoS is nothing more than favoring one stream’s packets over another stream’s. You can accomplish priority QoS on incoming streams by queuing (slowing down) one stream over another without relying on ToS bits.

Fact #5

Surprisingly, behavior-based methods such as those used by our NetEqualizer do provide a level QoS for VoIP on the public Internet. Although you can’t tell the Internet to send your VoIP packets faster, most people don’t realize the problem with congested VoIP is due to the fact that their VoIP packets are getting crowded out by large downloads. Often, the offending downloads are initiated by their own employees or users. A good behavior-based shaper will be able to favor VoIP streams over less essential data streams without any reliance on the sending party adhering to a QoS scheme.

For more information, check out Using NetEqualizer To Ensure Clean Clear VOIP.

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Educational Articles. Tags: , , , . 1 Comment »

What to expect from Internet Bursting

July 6, 2010 — netequalizer

APconnections will be releasing ( version 4.7) a bursting feature on their NetEqualizer bandwidth controller this week. What follows is an explanation of the feature and also some facts and information about Internet Bursting that consumers will also find useful.

First an explanation on how the NetEqualizer bursting feature works.

- The NetEqualizer currently comes with a feature that lets you set a rate limit by IP address.

- Prior to the bursting feature, the top speed allowed for each user was fixed at a set rate limit.

- Now with bursting a user can be allowed a burst of bandwidth for 10 seconds with speeds multiples of two , three or four, or any multiple of their base rate limit.

So if for example a user has a base rate limit of 2 megabits a second, and a burst factor of 4, then their connection will be allowed to burst all the way up to 8 megabits for 10 seconds, at which time it will revert back to the original 2 megabits per second. This type of burst will be noticed when loading large Web pages loaded with graphics. They will essentially fly up in the browser at warp speed.

In order to make  bursting a “special” feature it obviously can’t be on all the time. For this reason the NetEqualizer by default, will force a user to wait 80 seconds before they can burst again.

Will bursting show up in speed tests?

With the default settings of 10 second bursts and an 80 second time out before the next burst it is unlikely a user will be able to see their  full burst speed accurately with a speed test site.

How do you set a bursting feature for an IP address ?

From the GUI

Select

Add Rules->set hard limit

The last field in the command specifies the burst factor.  Set this field to the multiple of the default speed you wish to burst up to.

Note: Once bursting has been set-up, bursting on an IP address will start when that IP exceeds its rate limit (across all connections for that IP).  The burst applies to all connections across the IP address.

How do you turn the burst feature off for an IP address.

You must remove the Hard Limit on the IP address and then recreate the Hard Limit by IP without bursting defined.

From the Web GUI Main Menu, Click on ->Remove/Deactivate Rules

Select the appropriate Hard Limit from the drop-down box. Click on ->Remove Rule

To re-add the rule without bursting, from the Web GUI Main Menu, Click on ->Add Rules->Hard Limit by IP and leave the last field set to 1.

Can you change the global bursting defaults for duration of burst and time between bursts ?

Yes, from the GUI screen you can select

misc->run command

In the space provided you would run the following command

/usr/sbin/brctl setburstparams my 40  30

The first parameter is the time,in seconds, an IP must wait before it can burst again. If an IP has done a burst cycle it will be forced to wait this long in seconds before it can burst again.

The second parameter is the time, in seconds, an IP will be allowed  to burst before begin relegated back to its default rate cap.

The global burst parameters are not persistent, meaning you will need to put a command in the start up file if you want them to stick  between reboots.

/usr/sbin/brctl

If speed tests are not a good way to measure a burst, then what do you recommend?

The easiest way would be  to extend the burst time to minutes (instead of the default 10 seconds ) and then run the speed test.

With the default set at 10 seconds the best was to see a burst in action is to take a continuous snap shot of an IP’s consumption during an extended download.

Beware of the confusion that bursting might cause.

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Network Speed, New Features. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

Nine Tips and Technologies for Network WAN Optimization

June 16, 2010 — netequalizer

By Art Reisman

Art Reisman CTO www.netequalizer.com

Editor’s note: Art Reisman is the CTO of APconnections. APconnections designs and manufactures the popular NetEqualizer bandwidth shaper.

Although there is no way to actually make your true WAN speed faster, here are some tips for  corporate IT professionals that can make better use of the bandwidth you already have, thus providing the illusion of a faster pipe.

1) Caching — How  does it work and is it a good idea?

Caching servers have built-in intelligence to store the most recently and most frequently requested information, thus preventing future requests from traversing a WAN/Internet link unnecessarily.

Caching servers keep a time stamp of their last update to data. If the page time stamp has not changed since the last time a user has accessed the page, the caching server will present a local stored copy of the Web page, saving the time it would take to load the page from across the Internet.

Caching on your WAN link in some instances can reduce traffic by 50 percent or more. For example, if your employees are making a run on the latest PDF explaining their benefits, without caching each access would traverse the WAN link to a central server duplicating the data across the link many times over. With caching, they will receive a local copy from the caching server.

What is the downside of caching?

There are two main issues that can arise with caching:

a) Keeping the cache current –If you access a cache page that is not current you are at risk of getting old and incorrect information. Some things you may never want to be cached. For example, the results of a transactional database query. It’s not that these problems are insurmountable, but there is always the risk the data in cache will not be synchronized with changes. I personally have been misled by old data from my cache on several occasions.

b) Volume – There are some 300 million websites on the Internet. Each site contains upwards of several megabytes of public information. The amount of data is staggering and even the smartest caching scheme cannot account for the variation in usage patterns among users and the likelihood they will hit an uncached page.

We recommend Squid as a proxy solution.

2) Protocol Spoofing

Historically, there have been client server applications developed for an internal LAN. Many of these applications are considered chatty. For example, to complete a transaction between a client and server, tens of messages may be transmitted when perhaps one or two would suffice. Everything was fine until companies, for logistical and other reasons, extended their LANs across the globe using WAN links to tie different locations together.

To get a better visual on what goes on in a chatty application perhaps an analogy will help. It’s like  sending family members your summer vacation pictures, and, for some insane reason, putting each picture in a separate envelope and mailing them individually on the same mail run. Obviously, this would be extremely inefficient, just as chatty applications can be.

What protocol spoofing accomplishes is to “fake out” the client or server side of the transaction and then send a more compact version of the transaction over the Internet (i.e., put all the pictures in one envelope and send it on your behalf, thus saving you postage).

For more information, visit the Protocol Spoofing page at WANOptimization.org.

3) Compression

At first glance, the term compression seems intuitively obvious. Most people have at one time or another extracted a compressed Windows ZIP file. If you examine the file sizes pre- and post-extraction, it reveals there is more data on the hard drive after the extraction. Well, WAN compression products use some of the same principles, only they compress the data on the WAN link and decompress it automatically once delivered, thus saving space on the link, making the network more efficient. Even though you likely understand compression on a Windows file conceptually, it would be wise to understand what is really going on under the hood during compression before making an investment to reduce network costs. Here are two questions to consider.

a) How Does it Work? — A good and easy way to visualize data compression is comparing it to the use of short hand when taking dictation. By using a single symbol for common words a scribe can take written dictation much faster than if he were to spell out each word. The basic principle behind compression techniques is to use shortcuts to represent common data.

Commercial compression algorithms, although similar in principle, can vary widely in practice. Each company offering a solution typically has its own trade secrets that they closely guard for a competitive advantage. However, there are a few general rules common to all strategies. One technique is to encode a repeated character within a data file. For a simple example, let’s suppose we were compressing this very document and as a format separator we had a row with a solid dash.

The data for this solid dash line is comprised of approximately 160 times the ASCII character “-�. When transporting the document across a WAN link without compression, this line of document would require 80 bytes of data, but with clever compression, we can encode this using a special notation “-� X 160.

The compression device at the front end would read the 160 character line and realize,”Duh, this is stupid. Why send the same character 160 times in a row?” So, it would incorporate a special code to depict the data more efficiently.

Perhaps that was obvious, but it is important know a little bit about compression techniques to understand the limits of their effectiveness. There are many types of data that cannot be efficiently compressed.

For example, many image and voice recordings are already optimized and there is very little improvement in data size that can be accomplished with compression techniques. The companies that sell compression based solutions should be able to provide you with profiles on what to expect based on the type of data sent on your WAN link.

b) What are the downsides? — Compression always requires equipment at both ends of the link and results can be sporadic depending on the traffic type.

If you’re looking for compression vendors, we recommend FatPipe, Juniper Networks

4) Requesting Text Only from Browsers on Remote Links

Editors note: Although this may seem a bit archaic and backwoods, it can be effective in a pinch to keep a remote office up and running.

If you are stuck with a dial-up or slower WAN connection, have your users set their browsers to text-only mode. However, while this will speed up general browsing and e-mail, it will do nothing to speed up more bandwidth intensive activities like video conferencing. The reason why text only can be effective is that  most Web pages are loaded with graphics which take up the bulk of the load time. If you’re desperate, switching to text-only will eliminate the graphics and save you quite a bit of time.

5) Application Shaping on Your WAN Link

Editor’s Note: Application shaping is appropriate for corporate IT administrators and is generally not a practical solution for a home user. Makers of application shapers include Packeteer and Allot and are typically out of the price range for many smaller networks and home users.

One of the most popular and intuitive forms of optimizing bandwidth is a method called “application shaping,” with aliases of “traffic shaping,” “bandwidth control,” and perhaps a few others thrown in for good measure. For the IT manager that is held accountable for everything that can and will go wrong on a network, or the CIO that needs to manage network usage policies, this is a dream come true. If you can divvy up portions of your WAN/Internet link to various applications, then you can take control of your network and ensure that important traffic has sufficient bandwidth.

At the center of application shaping is the ability to identify traffic by type.  For example, identifying between Citrix traffic, streaming audio, Kazaa peer-to-peer, or something else. However, this approach is not without its drawbacks.

Here are a few common questions potential users of application shaping generally ask.

a) Can you control applications with just a firewall or do you need a special product? — Many applications are expected to use Internet ports when communicating across the Web. An Internet port is part of an Internet address, and many firewall products can easily identify ports and block or limit them. For example, the “FTP” application commonly used for downloading files uses the well known “port 21.”

The fallacy with this scheme, as many operators soon find out, is that there are many applications that do not consistently use a fixed port for communication. Many application writers have no desire to be easily classified. In fact, they don’t want IT personnel to block them at all, so they deliberately design applications to not conform to any formal port assignment scheme. For this reason, any product that aims to block or alter application flows by port should be avoided if your primary mission is to control applications by type.

b) So, if standard firewalls are inadequate at blocking applications by port, what can help?

As you are likely aware, all traffic on the Internet travels around in what is called an IP packet. An IP packet can very simply be thought of as a string of characters moving from Computer A to Computer B. The string of characters is called the “payload,” much like the freight inside a railroad car. On the outside of this payload, or data, is the address where it is being sent. These two elements, the address and the payload, comprise the complete IP packet.

In the case of different applications on the Internet, we would expect to see different kinds of payloads. For example, let’s take the example of a skyscraper being transported from New York to Los Angeles. How could this be done using a freight train? Common sense suggests that one would disassemble the office tower, stuff it into as many freight cars as it takes to transport it, and then when the train arrived in Los Angeles hopefully the workers on the other end would have the instructions on how to reassemble the tower.

Well, this analogy works with almost anything that is sent across the Internet, only the payload is some form of data, not a physical hunk of bricks, metal and wires. If we were sending a Word document as an e-mail attachment, guess what, the contents of the document would be disassembled into a bunch of IP packets and sent to the receiving e-mail client where it would be re-assembled. If I looked at the payload of each Internet packet in transit, I could actually see snippets of the document in each packet and could quite easily read the words as they went by.

At the heart of all current application shaping products is special software that examines the content of Internet packets, and through various pattern matching techniques, determines what type of application a particular flow is. Once a flow is determined, then the application shaping tool can enforce the operators policies on that flow. Some examples of policy are:

  • Limit Citrix traffic to 100kbs
  • Reserve 500kbs for Shoretel voice traffic

The list of rules you can apply to traffic types and flow is unlimited. However, there is a  downside to application shaping of which you should be aware. Here are a few:

  • The number of applications on the Internet is a moving target. The best application shaping tools do a very good job of identifying several thousand of them, and yet there will always be some traffic that is unknown (estimated at 10 percent by experts from the leading manufacturers). The unknown traffic is lumped into the unknown classification and an operator must make a blanket decision on how to shape this class. Is it important? Is it not? Suppose the important traffic was streaming audio for a Web cast and is not classified. Well, you get the picture. Although theory behind application shaping by type is a noble one, the cost for a company to stay up to date is large and there are cracks.
  • Even if the application spectrum could be completely classified, the spectrum of applications constantly changes. You must keep licenses current to ensure you have the latest in detection capabilities. And even then it can be quite a task to constantly analyze and change the mix of policies on your network. As bandwidth costs lessen, how much human time should be spent divvying up and creating ever more complex policies to optimize your WAN traffic?

6) Test Your WAN-Link Speed

A common issues with slow WAN link service is that your provider is not giving you what they have advertised.

For more information, see The Real Meaning of Comcast Generosity.

7) Make Sure There Is No Interference on Your Wireless Point-to-Point WAN Link

If the signal between locations served by a point to point link are weak, the wireless equipment will automatically downgrade its service to a slower speed. We have seen this many times where a customer believes they have perhaps a 40-megabit backhaul link and perhaps are only realizing five megabits.

8) Deploy a Fairness Device to Smooth Out Those Rough Patches During Contentious Busy Hours

Yes, this is the NetEqualizer News Blog, but with all bias aside, these things work great. If you are in an office sharing an Internet feed with various users, the NetEqualizer will keep aggressive bandwidth users from crowding others out. No, it cannot create additional bandwidth on your pipe, but it will eliminate the gridlock caused  by your colleague  in the next cubicle  downloading a Microsoft service pack.

Yes, there are other devices on the market (like your fancy router), but the NetEqualizer was specifically designed for that mission.

9) Bonus Tip: Kill All of Those Security Devices and See What Happens

With recent out break of the H1N1 virus, it reminded me of  how sometimes the symptoms and carnage from a vaccine are worse than the disease it claims to cure. Well, the same holds true for your security protection hardware on your network. From proxies to firewalls, underpowered equipment can be the biggest choke point on your network.

Created by APconnections, the NetEqualizer is a plug-and-play bandwidth control and WAN/Internet optimization appliance that is flexible and scalable. When the network is congested, NetEqualizer’s unique “behavior shaping” technology dynamically and automatically gives priority to latency sensitive applications, such as VoIP and email.

Click here for a full price list.

Links to other bandwidth control products on the market.

Packet Shaper by Blue Coat

Exinda

Riverbed

Exinda  Packet Shaper  and Riverbed tend to focus on the enterprise WAN optimization market.

Cymphonix

Cymphonix comes  from a background of detailed reporting.

Emerging Technologies

Very solid  product for bandwidth shaping.

Exinda

Exinda from Australia has really made a good run in the US market offering a good alternative to the incumbants.

Netlimiter

For those of you who are wed to Windows NetLimiter is your answer

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Educational Articles. Tags: , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Looking To Block P2P?

May 27, 2010 — netequalizer

Article reprinted from Slyck.com

By Thomas Mennecke

Let’s face it. P2P networking takes up a considerable amount of bandwidth. Whether you are a network administrator for a college LAN (Local Area Network) or an ISP, some estimates place P2P consumption (especially BitTorrent) at 60%. However, figuring out the most practical solution for various administrators varies. Should you outright ban P2P traffic? Incorporate bandwidth throttles? NetEqualizer lets you choose from these options and much more.

ISPs are in a more precarious situation than say a college LAN administrator. If P2P traffic begins to saturate a college network, the LAN administrator does not have to worry all that much if the decision is made to filter or block file-sharing traffic. Perhaps some people may complain, but the loss of revenue is not a concern.

ISPs on the other hand must take this into heavy consideration. P2P traffic consumes an enormous amount of bandwidth compared to the amount of individuals that use it. For example, CacheLogic, a P2P measuring and network solutions firm, states P2P traffic can consume a majority of the ISPs bandwidth, easily blowing away HTTP. Comparatively, only a relative few individuals actually utilize such high consumption protocols.

So here is the tricky part. ISPs know that P2P has helped fuel the broadband revolution. While not everyone uses BitTorrent; eDonkey2000, FastTrack, Gnutella, etc. are very popular. Block P2P users, an the ISP might face a significant backlash. Throttle their bandwidth, and the ISP might have similar results.

One of the more compromising solutions has been offered from CacheLogic, which aims to make everyone happy. CacheLogic’s function is to “cache” or store common P2P files based on the frequency of search queries. Instead of P2P traffic bogging down and ISPs network, it simple searches the cache server. P2P fans are left to enjoy their file-sharing bliss and web surfers can happily surf the World Wide Web.

However, say you are not interested in making the P2P crowd happy, and catering to web surfers is the priority. Say you want to throttle or block P2P traffic completely…then APConnection’s Net Equalizer comes into play.

According to a press release issued by APConnection today, their product “Net Equalizer” will now be distributed on a worldwide scale. Net Equalizer aims to give priority to web based traffic, while throttling back those who utilized P2P software. When file-sharing traffic begins to slow down those surfing the web, its “fairness” algorithing kicks. For more information on Net Equalizer, read the FAQ here.

“The recently signed distributors have selected NetEqualizer primarily for its ability to deliver automated bandwidth control. Other features that have driven adoption include the enhancement of security offerings with the ability to block and control p2p traffic and unique quality of service (QoS) capabilities that enable distributors to include NetEqualizer as part of a service provider VoIP package.”

NetEqualizer is a stark contrast to CacheLogic, which aims to compromise rather than block or throttle P2P traffic. Regardless, NetEqaulizer’s solution is straight forward and offers and immediate solution to a network that is bogged down with P2P traffic. However, as file-sharing and P2P traffic becomes more mainstream, consumers may take into consideration whether an ISP uses NetEqualizer or CacheLogic as a network management solution.

Posted in Bandwidth Management, News. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Using NetEqualizer to Ensure Clean, Clear QoS for VOIP Calls

April 27, 2010 — netequalizer

A Little Bit of History

Many VoIP installations  are designed with an initial architecture that assumes inter-office  phone calls will reside within the confines of the company LAN. Internal LANs  are almost always 100 megabit and consist of multiple paths between end points. The basic corporate LAN design usually provides more than enough bandwidth to route all inter-office VoIP calls without congestion.

As enterprises  become more dispersed geographically, care must be taken when extending  VoIP calls beyond the main office.  Once a VoIP call leaves the confines of your local network and traverses  over  the public Internet link, it will have to compete for space with any data traffic that might also be destined  for the Internet. Without careful planning, your Enterprise will most likely start dropping VoIP calls during  busy traffic times.

The most common way of dealing with priority or VoIP  is to set what is called the TOS bit.  The TOS bit acts like a little flag inside each Internet packet of the VoIP stream. An Internet router can  rearrange the packets destined for the Internet, and give priority to the outgoing VoIP packets by looking at the TOS bit. The downside of this method is that it does not help with VoIP calls originating  from the outside coming into your network.  For example, somebody receiving a VoIP call in the main office from a VPN user working at home, may experience some distortion on the incoming VoIP  call.  This is usually caused when somebody else in the office is doing a large download during the VoIP call.  Routers typically cannot set priority on incoming data, hence the inbound data download can dominate all the bandwidth, rendering the VoIP call inaudible.

How NetEqualizer Solves VoIP Congestion Issues

The NetEqualizer  solves the problem of  VoIP traffic competing with regular data traffic by using a simple  method. A NetEqualizer provides priority for both incoming and outgoing VoIP traffic . It does not use TOS bits.  It is VoIP and Network agnostic.  Sounds like the old Saturday Night Live commercial where Chevy Chase hawks a floor cleaner that is also an ice cream topping.

Here is how it works…

It turns out that VoIP streams require no more than 100kbs per  call,  usually quite a bit less.  Large downloads, on the other hand, will grab the entire Internet Trunk if they can get it.  The NetEqualizer has been designed to favor streams of less than 100kbs over larger data streams. When a large download is competing with a VoIP call for precious resources, the NetEqualizer will create some artificial latency on the download stream causing it to back off and slow down. No need to rely on TOS bits in this scenario, problem solved.

Conceptually, that is all there is to it.  Obviously, the NetEqualizer engineering team has refined and tuned  this technique over the years.  In general, the NetEqualizer Default Rules need very little set-up, and a unit can be inline in a matter of minutes.

The scenarios where NetEqualizer is appropriate for ensuring that your VoIP system runs smoothly are:

  1. You are running an Enterprise VoIP service with remote offices that connect to your main PBX over VPN links
  2. You are an ISP and your customers use a VoIP service over limited bandwidth connectivity

Recommended Reading

Other vendor White Papers on the subject:  River Bed

Other suggested reading:  http://www.bandwidth.com/wiki/article/QoS_(Quality_of_Service)

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Educational Articles. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

*Preview Version* of NetEqualizer Online Guided Product Demonstration Video

April 20, 2010 — netequalizer

Click on the picture below to see our new YouTube video (7:46 min) walkthrough of our technology.  Please note that the buttons listed on the last slide are not yet available.  We will update this post when they are available on our website… 

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Educational Articles. Tags: , . 1 Comment »

Ten Things to Consider When Choosing a Bandwidth Shaper

April 18, 2010 — netequalizer

This article is intended as an objective guide for anyone trying to narrow down their options in the bandwidth controller market. Organizations today have a plethora of product options to choose from. To further complicate your choices, not only are there  specialized bandwidth controllers, you’ll also find that most Firewall and Router products today contain some form of  bandwidth shaping and QoS  features .

What follows is an  all-encompassing  list of questions that will help you to quickly organize your  priorities with regards to choosing a bandwidth shaper.

1) What is the Cost of Increasing your Bandwidth?

Although this question may be a bit obvious, it must be asked. We assume that anybody in the market for a bandwidth controller also has the option of increasing their bandwidth. The costs of purchasing  and operating a bandwidth controller should ultimately be compared with the cost of increasing bandwidth on your network.

2) How much Savings should you expect from your Bandwidth Controller?

A good bandwidth controller in many situations can increase your carrying capacity by up to 50 percent.  However, beware, some technologies designed to optimize your network can create labor overhead in maintenance hours. Labor costs with some solutions can far exceed the cost of adding bandwidth.

3) Can you out-run your Organization’s Appetite for Increased Bandwidth  with a One-Time Bandwidth Upgrade?

The answer is yes, it is possible to buy enough bandwidth such that all your users cannot possibly exhaust the supply.  The bad news is that this solution is usually cost-prohibitive.  Many organizations that come to us have previously doubled their bandwidth, sometimes more than once, only to be back to overwhelming congestion within  a few months after their upgrade.  The appetite for bandwidth is insatiable, and in our opinion, at some point a bandwidth control device becomes your only rational option. Outrunning your user base usually is only possible where  Internet infrastructure is subsidized by a government entity, hiding the true costs.  For example, a small University with 1000 students will likely not be able to consume a true 5 Gigabit pipe, but purchasing a pipe of that size would be out of reach for most US-based Universities.

4) How Valuable is Your Time? Are you a Candidate for a Freeware-type Solution?

What we have seen in the market place is that small shops with high technical expertise, or small ISPs on a budget, can often make use of a freeware do-it-yourself bandwidth control solution.  If you are cash-strapped, this may be a viable solution for you.  However, please go into this with your eyes open.  The general pitfalls and risks are as follows:

a) Staff can easily run up 80 or more hours trying to  save a few thousand dollars fiddling with an unsupported solution.  And this is only for the initial installation & set-up.  Over the useful life of the solution, this can continue at a high-level, due to the unsupported nature of these technologies.

b) Investors  do not like to invest in businesses with homegrown technology, for many reasons, including finding personnel to sustain the solution, upgrading and adding features, as well as overall risk of keeping it in working order, unless it gives them a very large competitive advantage. You can easily shoot yourself in the foot with prospective buyers by becoming too dependent on homegrown, freeware solutions, in order to save costs. When you rely on something homegrown, it generally means an employee or two holds the keys to the operational knowledge, hence potential buyers can become uncomfortable (you would be too!).

5) Are you Looking to Enforce Bandwidth Limits as part of a Rate Plan that you Resell to Clients?

For example , let’s say that you have a good-sized backbone of bandwidth at a reasonable cost per megabit, and you just want to enforce class of service speeds to sell your bandwidth in incremental revenue chunks.

If this is truely your only requirement, and not optimization to support high contention ratios, then you should be careful not to overspend on your solution. A basic NetEqualizer or Allot system may be all that you need. You can also most likely leverage the bandwidth control features bundled into your Router or Firewall.  The thing to be careful of if using your Router/Firewall is that these devices can become overwhelmed due to lack of horsepower.

6) Are you just Trying to Optimize the Bandwidth that you have, based on Well-Known Priorities?

Some context:

If you have a very static network load, with a finite well-defined set of  applications running through your enterprise, there are application shaping (Layer-7 shaping) products out there such as the Blue Coat PacketShaper,which uses deep packet inspection, that can be set up once to allocate different amounts bandwidth based on application.  If the PacketShaper is a bit too pricey, the Cymphonics product can also detect most common applications.

If  you are trying to optimize your bandwidth on a variable, wide-open plethora of applications, then you may find yourself with extremely high maintenance costs by using a Layer-7 application shaper. A generic behavior-based product such as the NetEqualizer will do the trick.

7) Make sure  what looks elegant on the cover does not have hidden costs by doing a little research on the Internet.

Yes this is an obvious one too, but lest you forget your due diligence!

Before purchasing any traffic shaping solution  you should try a simple internet search with well placed keywords to uncover objective opinions. Current testimonials supplied by the vendor are a good source of information, but only tell half the story. Current customers are always biased toward their decision sometimes in the face of ignoring a better solution.

If you are not familiar with this technology, nor have the in-house expertise to work with a traffic shaper, you may want to consider buying additional bandwidth as your solution.  In order to assess if this is a viable solution for you, we recommend you think about the following: How much bandwidth do you need ? What is the appropriate amount for your ISP or organization?  We actually dedicated a complete article to this question.

8) Are you a Windows Shop?  Do you expect a Microsoft-based solution due to your internal expertise?

With all respect to Microsoft and the strides they have made toward reliability in their server solutions, we believe that you should avoid a Windows-based product for any network routing or bandwidth control mission.

To be effective, a bandwidth control device must be placed such that all traffic is forced to pass through the device. For this reason, all manufacturers that we are aware of develop their network devices using a derivative of  Linux. Linux-based is based on Open Source, which means that an OEM can strip down the operating system to its simplest components.  The simpler operating system in your network device, the less that can go wrong.  However, with Windows the core OS source code is not available to third-party developers, hence an OEM may not always be able to track down serious bugs. This is not to say that bugs do not occur in Linux, they do, however the OEM can often get a patch out quickly.

For the Windows IT person trained on Windows, a well-designed networking device presents its interface via a standard web page.  Hence, a technician likely needs no specific Linux background.

9) Are you a CIO (or C level Executive) Looking to Automate and Reduce Costs ?

Bandwidth controllers can become a means to do cool things with a network.  Network Administrators can get caught up reading fancy reports, making daily changes, and interpreting results, which can become  extremely labor-intensive.  There is a price/benefit crossover point where a device can create more work (labor cost)  than bandwidth saved.  We have addressed this paradox in detail in a previous article.

10) Do you have  any Legal or Political Requirement to Maintain Logs or Show Detailed Reports to a Third-Party (i.e. management ,oversight committee, etc.)?

For example…

A government requirement to provide data wire taps dictated by CALEA?

Or a monthly report on employee Internet behavior?

Related article how to choose the right bandwidth management solution

Links to other bandwidth control products on the market.

Packet Shaper by Blue Coat

NetEqualizer ( my favorite)

Exinda

Riverbed

Exinda  Packet Shaper  and Riverbed tend to focus on the enterprise WAN optimization market.

Cymphonix

Cymphonix comes  from a background of detailed reporting.

Emerging Technologies

Very solid  product for bandwidth shaping.

Exinda

Exinda from Australia has really made a good run in the US market offering a good alternative to the incumbants.

Netlimiter

For those of you who are wed to Windows NetLimiter is your answer

Antamediabandwidth

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Educational Articles. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Equalizing Compared to Application Shaping (Traditional Layer-7 “Deep Packet Inspection” Products)

March 31, 2010 — netequalizer

Editor’s Note: (Updated with new material March 2012)  Since we first wrote this article, many customers have implemented the NetEqualizer not only to shape their Internet traffic, but also to shape their company WAN.  Additionally, concerns about DPI and loss of privacy have bubbled up. (Updated with new material September 2010)  Since we first published this article, “deep packet inspection”, also known as Application Shaping, has taken some serious industry hits with respect to US-based ISPs.   

==============================================================================================
Author’s Note: We often get asked how NetEqualizer compares to Packeteer (Bluecoat), NetEnforcer (Allot), Network Composer (Cymphonix), Exinda, and a plethora of other well-known companies that do Application Shaping (aka “packet shaping”, “deep packet inspection”, or “Layer-7″ shaping).   After several years of these questions, and discussing different aspects with former and current application shaping with IT administrators, we’ve developed a response that should clarify the differences between NetEqualizer’s behavior- based approach and the rest of the pack.
We thought of putting our response into a short, bullet-by-bullet table format, but then decided that since this decision often involves tens of thousands of dollars, 15 minutes of education on the subject with content to support the bullet chart was in order.  If you want to skip the details, see our Summary Table at the end of this article…

However, if you’re looking to really understand the differences, and to have the question answered as objectively as possible, please take a few minutes to read on…
==============================================================================================

How NetEqualizer compares to Bluecoat, Allot, Cymphonix, & Exinda

In the following sections, we will cover specifically when and where Application Shaping is used, how it can be used to your advantage, and also when it may not be a good option for what you are trying to accomplish.  We will also discuss how Equalizing, NetEqualizer’s behavior-based shaping, fits into the landscape of application shaping, and how in many cases Equalizing is a much better alternative.

Download the full article (PDF)  Equalizing Compared To Application Shaping White Paper

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bandwidth Management, White Papers. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

What Is Burstable Bandwidth? Five Points to Consider

January 29, 2010 — netequalizer

Internet providers continually use clever marketing analogies to tout their burstable high-speed Internet connections. One of my favorites is the comparison to an automobile with overdrive that at the touch of button can burn up the road. At first, the analogies seem valid, but there are usually some basic pitfalls and unresolved issues. Below are five points that are designed to make you ponder just what you’re getting with your burstable Internet connection, and may ultimately call some of these analogies, and burstable Internet speeds altogether, into question.

  1. The car acceleration analogy just doesn’t work. First, you don’t share your car’s engine with other users when you’re driving. Whatever the engine has to offer is yours for the taking when you press down on the throttle.  Second, with your Internet connection, unless there is a magic button next your router, you don’t have the ability to increase your speed on command. Instead, Internet bursting is a mysterious feature that only your provider can dole out when they deem appropriate. You have no control over the timing.
  2. Therefore, since you don’t have the ability to decide when you can be granted the extra power, how does your provider decide when to turn up your burst speed? Most providers do not share details on how they implement bursting policies, but here is an educated guess based on years of experience helping providers enforce various policies regarding Internet line speeds. I suspect your provider watches your bandwidth consumption and lets you pop up to your full burst speed, typically 10 megabits, for a few seconds at a time.  If you continue to use the full 10 megabits for more than a few seconds, they likely will reign you back down to your normal committed rate (typically 1 megabit). Please note this is just an example from my experience and may not reflect your provider’s actual policy.
  3. Above, I mentioned a few seconds for a burst, but just how long does a typical burst last? If you were watching a bandwidth-intensive HD video for an hour or more, for example, could you sustain adequate line speed to finish the video? A burst of a few seconds will suffice to make a Web page load in 1/8 of a second instead of perhaps the normal 3/4 of a second. While this might be impressive to a degree, when it comes to watching an hour-long video, this might eclipse your baseline speed. So, if you’re watching a movie or doing any another sustained bandwidth-intensive activity, it is unlikely you will be able to benefit from any sort of bursting technology.
  4. Why doesn’t my provider let me have the burst speed all of the time? The obvious answer is that if they did,  it would not be a burst, so it must somehow be limited in some duration. A better  answer is that your provider has peaks and valleys in their available bandwidth during the day, and the higher speed of a burst can not be delivered consistently. Therefore, it’s better to leave bursting as a nebulous marketing term rather than a clearly defined entity.
  5. When are the likely provider peak times where my burst is compromised? Slower service and the inability to burst are most likely during times when everybody else on the Internet is watching movies — during the early evening.

These five points should give you a good idea of the multiple questions and issues that need to be considered when weighing the viability and value of burstable Internet speeds. Of course, a final decision on bursting will ultimately depend on your specific circumstances. For further related reading on the subject, we suggest you visit our articles How Much YouTube Can the Internet Handle and Field Guide to Contention Ratios.

I also ran across another perspective this article takes the perspective of a group of users sharing a feed which is fine way to save costs.

http://wiki.hostpedia.org/Burstable_Bandwidth

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Educational Articles, Network Speed. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Burstable Internet Connections — Are They of Any Value?

September 17, 2009 — netequalizer

A burstable Internet connection conjures up the image of a super-charged Internet reserve, available at your discretion during a moment of need, like pushing the gas pedal to the floor to pass an RV on a steep grade. Americans find comfort knowing that they have that extra horsepower at their disposal. The promise of power is ingrained in our psyche, and is easily tapped into when marketing an Internet service. However, if you stop for a minute, and think about what is a bandwidth burst, it might not be a feature worth paying for in reality.

Here are some key questions to consider:

  • Is a burst one second, 10 seconds, or 10 hours at a time? This might seem like a stupid question, but it is at the heart of the issue. What good is a 1-second burst if you are watching a 20-minute movie?
  • If it is 10 seconds, then how long do I need to wait before it becomes available again?
  • Is it available all of the time, or just when my upstream provider(s) circuits are not busy?
  • And overall, is the burst really worth paying for? Suppose the electric company told you that you had a burstable electric connection or that your water pressure fluctuated up for a few seconds randomly throughout the day? Is that a feature worth paying for? Just because it’s offered doesn’t necessarily mean it’s needed or even that advantageous.

While the answers to each of these questions will ultimately depend on the circumstances, they all serve to point out a potential fallacy in the case for burstable Internet speeds: The problem with bursting and the way it is marketed is that it can be a meaningless statement without a precise definition. Perhaps there are providers out there that lay out exact definitions for a burstable connection, and abide by those terms. Even then we could argue that the value of the burst is limited.

What we have seen in practice is that most burstable Internet connections are unpredictable and simply confuse and annoy customers. Unlike the turbo charger in your car, you have no control over when you can burst and when you can’t. What sounded good in the marketing literature may have little practical value without a clear contract of availability.

Therefore, to ensure that burstable Internet speeds really will work to your advantage, it’s important to ask the questions mentioned above. Otherwise, it very well may just serve as a marketing ploy or extra cost with no real payoff in application.

Update: October 1, 2009

Today a user group published a bill of rights in order to nail ISPs down on what exactly they are providing in their service contracts.
ISP claims of bandwidth speed.

I noticed that  in the article, the bill of rights, requires a full disclosure about the speed of the providers link to the consumers modem. I am not sure if this is enough to accomplish a fixed minimus speed to the consumer.  You see, a provider could then quite easily oversell the capacity on their swtiching point. The point where they hook up to a backbone of other providers.  You can not completely regulate speed across the Internet, since by design providers hand off or exchange traffic with other providers.  Your provider cannot control the speed of your connection once it is off their network.

Posted by Eli Riles, VP of sales www.netequalizer.com.

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Commentary and Editorials, Network Speed, News. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.