NetEqualizer Gains Traction against Competition in Australia


In a recent discussion on how and where to deploy a NetEqualizer Stephan Wickham, Product Marketing Manager for KeyTrust (keytrust.com.au), had the following astounding revelation:

“My view is to try NetEqualizer and see how it works – I would then only apply a more expensive solution in instances that require special features or functionality not available with NetEqualizer. I believe this approach is the most practical. I also don’t believe that identifying and reporting on 100s of application types as performed by other products on the market serves much purpose. It would be like trying to manage freeway traffic flow by the identifying vehicle types and then reserving lanes per type. NetEqualizer works more like identifying a gang riding Harleys disrupting traffic and turns them into nice people riding Vespa scooters going with the flow.”

The Power of Organic Growth and Testimonials


The path that most entrepreneurs envision to growth is to create a product or an idea and the world will buy it. Usually by the time the development is complete, the bills are coming in and revenue has not caught up enough to cover the carrying cost. The only option at this point is to get a real job and put the dream on hold or solicit outside funding. The downside of this model, besides the obvious selling of your soul, is that most inventors want to see a return on investment within a couple of years. To do this, much of their cash flow is used on developing a channel.

Common wisdom (this came from a discussion with a couple of analysts from Gartner a couple years ago) is that you can have a little niche of a product via direct sales, but you’ll never be anything substantial without a serious channel. To be a real company, you need to gross tens of millions of sales. You can’t do that without a channel. This means regional offices in metro areas and countries, presence at all the right events, coverage by analysts, etc. And that takes capital.

Well, we continue to buck that trend. Perhaps our customers are self-selecting, but more and more are shunning trade shows and are finding good products through peer groups and selective Internet searches.

The nice thing about our organic growth is that we have grown without the traditional channels or the expensive management that are pushed on start ups. Hence we keep our prices well under the competition while remaining financially healthy.

Here is a recent unsolicited testimonial thread I recently ran into. It is this type of support that will ensure we will remain privately held, profitable, and affordably priced into the forseeable future.

———————————————————————–

From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Rafael Cortes
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 4:01 PM
To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [SECURITY] Packet shaping and Bandwidth Management

Is anyone doing anything different these days with packet shaping using Packeteer appliances,

especially due to the increase of streaming video and flash?

********************************************
Rafael Cortes
Manager, Network and Technical Services
Mercer County Community College

Hi, Rafael. We had a Packeteer here at Keystone College, but outgrew it when we upgraded our bandwidth. Someone on this list suggested looking at a NetEqualizer box (http://netequalizer.com/). I did, bought it, love it. No maintenance, no updates, no headaches. It just sits there and works…

– Charlie

Charlie Prothero

CIO

Keystone College


Failover and NetEqualizer: The Whys and Why Nots


Do you want failover on your NetEqualizer or wondered why it’s not available? Let me share a story with you that has developed our philosophy on failover.

A long time ago, back in 1993 or so, I was the Unix and operating system point person for the popular AT&T (i.e. Lucent and Avaya) voice messaging product called Audix. It was my job to make sure that the Unix operating system was bug free and to trouble shoot any issues.

At the time, Audix sales accounted for about $300 million in business and included many Fortune 500 companies around the world. One of the features which I investigated, tested, and certified was our RAID technology. The data on our systems consisted of the archives of all those saved messages that were so important, even more so before e-mail became the standard.

I had a lab setup with all sorts of disk arrays and would routinely yank one from the rack while an Audix system was running. The RAID software we’d integrated worked flawlessly in every test. We were one of the largest companies in the world and we spared no expense to ensure quality in our equipment, and we also charged a premium for everything we sold. If the RAID line item feature was included with an Audix system, it could run as high as $100,000.

Flash forward to the future. We get a call that a customer has lost all their data. A RAID system had failed. It was a well-known insurance company in the Northeast. Needless to say, they were not pleased that their 100 K insurance policy against disk failure did not pan out.

I had certified this mechanism and stood behind it. So, I called together the RAID manufacturer and several Unix kernel experts to do a postmortem. After several days locked in a room, we found was that the real world failure did not follow the lab testing where we had pulled live disk drives in our lab. In fact, it failed in such a way as to slowly corrupt the customer data on all disk drives rendering it useless.

I did some follow up research on failover strategies over the years and discovered that many people implement them for political reasons to cover their asses. I do not mean to demean people covering their asses, it is an important part of business, but the problem is the real cost of testing and validating failover is not practical for most manufacturers.

Many customers ask, “If a NetEqualizer fails, will the LAN cards still pass data?” The answer is, we could certainly engineer our product this way, but there is no guarantee for fail safe systems.

Here are the pros and cons of such a technology:

1) Just like my disk drive failure experience, a system can fail many different ways and the failover mechanism is likely not foolproof. So, I don’t want to recreate history for something we cannot (nor can anybody) reliably real-world test.

2) NetEqualizer’s failure rate is about two percent over two years, which is mostly attributed to harsh operating conditions. That means you have a 1 in 50 chance of having a failure over a two-year period. Put simply, the odds are against this happening.

3) If a NetEqualizer fails, it is usually a matter of moving a cable, which can be easily fixed. So, if you, or anyone with access to the NetEqualizer, are within an hour of your facility, that means you have a 1 in 50 chance of your network being down for one hour every two years because of a NetEqualizer.

4) Customers that really need a fully redundant failover for their operation duplicate their entire infrastructure and purchase two NetEqualizers. These customers are typically brokerage houses where large revenue could be lost. Since they already have a fully tested strategy at the macro level, a failover card on the NetEqualizer is not needed.

5) For customer that is just starting to dabble, they have gone to Cisco spanning tree protocol. Cisco has many years and billions of dollars invested in their switching technology and is rock solid.

6) Putting LAN failover cards in our product would likely raise our base price by about $1000. That would be a significant price increase for most customers, and one that would most likely not be worth paying for.

7) Most equipment failures are software or system related. We take pride in the fact that our boxes run forever and don’t lock up or need rebooting. A failover LAN card does not typically protect against system-type failures.

So, yes, we could sell our system as failsafe with a failover LAN card, but we would rather educate than exploit fears and misunderstandings. Hopefully we’ve accomplished that here.

Does TCP need an overhaul?


Just stumbled upon an article by

Dr. Lawrence G. Roberts, CEO, Anagran Inc.

He discusses the idea of solving Internet Congestion by Fixing the TCP protocol. Here is an excerpt


There has been widespread discussion lately about the unfairness of the primary protocol we rely on with the Internet – Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) – along with many proposals on how to fix it. Since there are clearly many problems with both slow and unfair service, my question is: Should TCP be overhauled to fix today’s congestion control problem, or does the network itself need fixing?

First, the problems include:

  • Multi-flow unfairness – More flows, such as P2P, can consume too much capacity
  • Distance unfairness – Long-distance users get slower service
  • Loss unfairness – Random packet loss slows flows unevenly; Web access is slowed

He then goes on discuss various specific congestion problems and proposes some ways to solve it by mucking with the TCP protocol itself. It is a very good article!

I Just wanted to point out that inside the NetEqalizer we have already brought back fairness to many congested networks without retrofitting TCP. I just wish we were a little better at getting the word out!

Here is the link to the full article

http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=499&doc_id=150113&

Eli Riles

NetEqualizer Bandwidth Controller Looking Strong During Slowdown


The last several months have been filled with panic and scare by the news media. The world is coming to an end for many reasons. To name a few:

1) Greedy Wall Street firms

2) Greedy oil companies

3) Lack of government oversight on the mortgage industry

4) An unpopular war in IRAQ

5) Child molesters on the Internet

6) Crazed lunatics on college campuses

I suppose you could listen to this and get depressed or you could ignore it and buy a NetEqualizer, which is what many new customers are doing these days.

One factor is obviously our price points. Companies either die or move forward, and part of moving forward involves maintaining a superior communication infrastructure.

During boom years, purchasing a bandwidth controller was an easy sale for our competitors. The Packeteer, Allot, River Bed reps showed up at the door and the typical IT director, opened his pocket, and wrote a check, often dropping 50K without blinking. Now with a slightly uncertain future, the formerly little known NetEqualizer brand, priced too low to be true, is now on par with more expensive traffic shapers.

Our inquires and sales for the first quarter of 2008 are picking up over last year. We have not increased our advertising and we still sell mostly direct, thus keeping our prices down.

In the past week, we had major sales to companies such as Fluor Corporation, Airbus, and some major college accounts.

More to come soon, look for our new release coming out in May 2008.

Eli Riles — For the NetEqalizer

A Detailed Case Study of Packet Shaper and NetEqualizer


Editors note:

The quote by the Adams State administrator sums it up.

 "The price is fair, the best value in the product space"

This is a re-post of the Adams state blog, the details are a bit technical which don’t reflect the actual simplicity of a basic setup. From box to Network it is usually under an hour, without little or no recurring maintenance.

http://faculty.adams.edu/~cdmiller/?TrafficShaping

Also note NTOP reporting issues were remedied shortly after this original post back in 2006.

———————————————————————————————————-

In May 2006 we switched bandwidth management products. We moved from traditional layer 7 traffic shaping to bandwidth arbitration. We looked at upgrading our current product and 3 other solutions.

I am convinced protocol and layer 7 based filtering is dead. I expect P2P products to use SSL or TLS bypassing layer 7 filters. Ethically layer 7 filtering smells like content filtering, big brother, evil.

Bandwidth arbitration keeps things simple. When the Internet connection reaches a tuneable level of utilization the arbitrator slows down longer lived higher usage data transfers based on the number of connections and their utilization. Per host connection limiting keeps P2P playing nicely.

The chosen product? Net Equalizer.

Based on the open source Bandwidth Arbitrator, it is easy to configure and highly customizable. Support has been excellent.

  • Initial Tests

With the netequalizer link size at ~20% below our average utilization our pipe remained completely usable. Interactive applications responded well while large transfers continued to function. The connection limits appear to keep bittorrent and gnutella functional and in control.

  • Qualitative Results 2006-06-23

Downloads are faster, latency is at pre layer 7 filtering levels (9ms vs 300ms), P2P protocols are usable again, and we no longer police content, we manage bandwidth. Support has been excellent with technicians responding directly to my emails with all technical levels of questions answered, good, silly, and questions about the inner workings of the appliance. I was instructed on cautions to take withe any attempt at customization, and given the go ahead for some minor custom configuration without voiding the warranty.

  • Update 2006-11-06

We have run the Netequalizer for 6 months. Results are phenomenal compared with our last product. Our Netequalizer box has been up for 116 days with no configuration changes from the start of the semester. I look at my Cacti graphs and the custom CGI reports for solace, as if I’m disappointed the appliance doesn’t need more care and feeding.

  • Our Configuration

For our 21Mb link, we set 3 basic parameters:

 RATIO 75
 BRAIN_SIZE 2500
 CONNECTION LIMIT 40

The ratio is the amount of of our pipe in use before any shaping (arbitration) takes place. The brain_size is the number of connections for the equalizer to track and act upon, I have seen this number reached only once on our system. The connection limit means we allow 20 incoming and 20 outgoing connections maximum for every host on our network. We had to set every one or our servers as an exception to this rule, allowing 50,000 incoming and outgoing connections for those. We also had to specify our link size. That’s it end of configuration.

  • Custom Modifications

We did very simple things to appease ourselves of the performance of the box. First, we placed an SNMP daemon on it. I used a stock snmpd from a Mandriva 2006 server, from net-snmp 5.2.1.2. I was going to static compile one, but it turned out the dynamic libraries were all in place, here is the ldd output:

     ldd /usr/local/snmp/sbin/snmpd
     linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)
     libdl.so.2 => /lib/tls/libdl.so.2 (0x4001b000)
     libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x4001f000)
     libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x40031000)
     libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x40057000)
     /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)

I put the daemon in /usr/local/snmp/sbin/ and the mibs and snmpd.conf in /usr/local/snmp/share/snmp/.

We created 2 custom CGI scripts. One script shows the complete current logfile on demand rather than the last however many lines the web interface shows. The other script shows total current connections, followed by a list of hosts with more than 3 connections, sorted by total outgoing and incoming connections. I modified some of the scripts provided in the /art directory to produce those results. Someone with more familiarity with the Linux bridge utilities could probably do better.

Here is the showlog.cgi script I placed in the /var/www/cgi-bin/arbi directory:

 #!/bin/perl
 print "Content-type: text/html\n\n";
 print "<html><head></head><body><pre>";
 system("cat /tmp/arblog.bak");
 system("cat /tmp/arblog");
 print "</pre></body></html>";

Here are some lines from the showlog output, catching the arbitrator slowing someone down with .05 second delays (the DELAY portion):

 11/06/06 08:39:32 PENALTY  IP : 147.124.8.230 192.156.134.2 POOL: 0  WAVG:  133212 BUFF: 102  DELAY: 5
 11/06/06 08:39:32 INCREASE PENALTY  IP: 147.124.8.230  192.156.134.2 POOL: 0  BUFF: 102  DELAY: 10
 11/06/06 08:39:44 Traffic up: 575430 Traffic  down: 962330  POOL 0
 PENALTY  THRESHOLD pool 0 up 2688000 down 2688000
 11/06/06 08:39:47 PENALTY DECREASE: 147.124.8.230 192.156.134.2 to 5 POOL: 0
 11/06/06 08:39:51 PENALTY REMOVE: 147.124.8.230 192.156.134.2 POOL: 0

Here is some output from our connections script with the top 5 out and in hosts:

 Total Connections: 2074
 More than 3 Outgoing Connections:
 192.156.134.15 76
 192.156.134.2 61
 72.166.201.218 58
 192.156.134.16 36
 72.166.205.159 21
 More than 3  Incoming Connections:
 72.166.205.159 88
 192.156.134.15 76
 72.166.201.110 57
 192.156.134.2 56
 72.166.201.218 51

Notice the hosts with more than 20 connections. Some of these are exempt servers, but others are workstations. Our firewall disallows non related incoming connections campus workstations, Netequalizer is in front of the firewall. I have examined some of these cases and many are P2P connection attempts that never truly connect to transfer data or are very short lived. We typically see about 20 to 30 hosts at or above the connection limit and about 100 hosts with more than 3 incmoing or outgoing connections, including all of our Internet servers.

  • Verification, Tests

We have an out of band PC using Ntop to track what hosts on the network are doing. I have verified the output of the Netequalizer against our Ntop machine many times in the last few months. I have also on occasion initiated a large download from a fast Internet site when I notice one or two folks getting high data rates. At those times I have observed Netequalizer start to arbitrate, creating head room on the pipe to keep bursty interactive traffic responsive.

  • Criticism, Pros, Cons
 The user interface is spartan, strictly functional
 Ntop is not really usable on the appliance

 Editors note: ( NTOP has been updated and supported in later versions since this comment was posted)

 An SNMP daemon should be included
 More logging should be available
 Performance is as advertised, if not better
 Minimal configuration is required
 Maintenance is minimal
 User manual has some typos
 User manual requires a full read
 User manual is only 36 pages, reflects minimal configuration required
 Some level of customization is allowed without voiding the warranty
 Support is excellent
 The price is fair, the best value in the product space

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.

Inside the Thought Process of a Customer Buying a Traffic Shaper


Editor note: Here is a snippet of an e-mail re-printed with permission from a perspective customer. Their analogy on how a NetEqualizer compares to some of the competition was one of those aha moments where a customer gets it.


“My view is to try NetEqualizer and see how it works – I would then only apply a more expensive solution in instances that require special features or functionality not available with NetEqualizer. I believe this approach is the most practical. I also don’t believe that identifying and reporting on 100s of application types as performed by XXXXX and XXXXXXX serves much purpose. It would be like trying to manage freeway traffic flow by the identifying vehicle types and then reserving lanes per type. NetEqualizer works more like identifying a gang riding Harleys disrupting traffic and turns them into nice people riding Vespa scooters going with the flow.

Regards,

Stephan Wickham
Product Marketing Manager

KeyTrust
L 9 / 22 William Street
Melbourne, VIC 3000
Australia”

Customer testimonial from ISP-wireless.com sums it up.


Editors note: This customer wrote this from the heart he has never received any perk or compensation from APconnections.
“We’ve been having problems with encrypted BitTorrent running on Port 80. uTorrent, Azureus, BitComet clients in particular were impossible to track down automatically, so finding them by hand and putting them in jail was starting to take more and more admin time.

We had a pretty good connection aging rule set in MikroTik, but lost bandwidth by having to define a pipe size first, then setting queues within that defined pipe. Doesn’t work particularly well for wireless where the pipe size tends to change a bit with changing RF conditions during the day. Also had to put too many rules in too many routers so it was getting pretty difficult to maintain.

I saw a mention or two of NetEqualizer on a couple of forums, and pretty much brushed it off as more BS. We already had an Etinc bandwidth manager gathering dust and didn’t want the same thing happening again.

Well, about two weeks ago we got fed up enough to give NetEqualizer a call. Had a couple of interesting chats, decent tech sales conversations, very little push from them, careful to set reasonable expectations etc. They said it works, its completely transparent, holds traffic levels within 10-15% of what you want, prioritizes interactive stuff including VoIP and requires very little setup and even less maintenance. It manages traffic patterns only and doesn’t try to sniff packets to detect PtP.

They were also very clear that “less is more”. Don’t put in a bunch of rules to micromanage, just let it do its thang.

So we bought one last Friday. The 45Mbit version, cost about $3500 or so including some basic support and maintenance. Nice 1U case, but quite a noisy fan. Showed up Tuesday morning, which is pretty good shipping time considering it went through customs to get here.

Plugged it in around lunchtime Tuesday into a managed switch where we could easily cut it in and out of our main feed trunk. Left if out of the traffic stream while we read through the quickstart guide, then took about 5 mins to give it an IP address and put in the basic three rules. Made a few entries to exempt various servers from connection limits, gave three or four customer IPs “priority host” exemptions and left it alone for a while to make sure that the magic smoke wasn’t going to suddenly escape.

Flipped switch ports to put the NetEq into the traffic stream about 5pm Tuesday. Still had a bunch of MT routers running rule sets, including the main gateway with a global daytime PtP ban.

WELL! It settled in very gracefully within a few minutes, and we could see the connection count to the Internet gradually dropping off, while bandwidth utilization started to smooth out to about 2 Mbit less than the 21 Mbit we had set. You could watch IP pair delay “penalties” being applied, increased, decreased and removed in the log. Bursts were still allowed to bring the peak just over 22 Mbit, and the upload side settled at about 1 Mbit less than the 6 Mbits we set. Again, bursts were allowed to around 7 Mbits. The Internet felt great!!

Over the next few hours we disable all the existing MT rule sets, including the global gateway rules for PtP. Bandwidth utilization still looked relatively smooth, cruising around the Net felt great, VoIP worked fine, everything was peachy.

The next day we figured out that a couple of big customers running over VPN tunnels needed priority exemptions, as tunnels look like one big lump of abuse from a NetEqualizer viewpoint.

We also set some priorities with bandwidth caps for big clients running server farms.

And waited for the shoe to drop…. And waited, and waited. Calls to our tech support dropped off, nobody was complaining about throughput, and we waited some more. Even PtP worked great during the day as it was allowed to use any unused bandwidth that “real-time” applications didn’t need.

And we’re still waiting four days later.

This device is about the closest thing to black magic we’ve seen in years. It just plain works. I’ve removed about half of the few config rules I put in to start, we simply don’t need them. The only thing you have to watch is connection limits on servers, and make exemptions for big customers routing all their traffic through tunnels. That’s it.

To put this in context, we’re handling just under 30 Mbits total flow, and sit at about 2400 pps each way during the day, dropping off out of business hours. We have an evening residential burst to about 70% of our daytime max. We’re seeing about 1300 concurrent IP connection pairs during the day down to around 800 in the evening. That’s with roughly 750 customers representing 5000+ total seats. 900 MHz customers normally get 3 Mbit or so, and pretty much everyone else gets 5+, so they get grumpy fast if bandwidth drops off.

It only took 10-15 customers running encrypted PtP on Port 80 to ruin our lives, and the trend they represented was horrifying. Over the last six months, our bandwidth utilization has gone up at least 50% higher than can be accounted for by customer growth.

Obviously we have no connection with NetEqualizer beyond being a very happy customer. Their FAQ here »www.netequalizer.com/tsfaq.htm pretty much says it all.”

George Morris

Candlelight.ca

Comcast Should Adopt Behavior-Based Shaping to Stay out of Trouble


Well it finally happened…

As reported by the NY times :

SAN FRANCISCO — Comcast, the country’s largest residential Internet provider, said on Thursday that it would take a more equitable approach toward managing the ever-expanding flow of Web traffic on its network.

The cable company, based in Philadelphia, has been under relentless pressure from the Federal Communications Commission and public interest groups after media reports last year that it was blocking some Internet traffic of customers who used online software based on the popular peer-to-peer BitTorrent protocol.

As many of our ISP customers already know, we have been proselytizing that using layer-7 packet shaping is a slippery slope for any provider and it was only a matter of time before a large provider such as Comcast would be forced to change their ways.

Note: Layer-7 shaping involves looking at data to determine what it is. A technique commonly used to identify bit torrent traffic.


The NetEqualizer methodology for application shaping has been agnostic with respect to type of data for quite some time. We have shown through our thousands of customers that you can effectively control and give priority to Internet traffic based on behavior. We did not feel comfortable with our layer-7 application shaping techniques and hence we ceased to support that methodology almost two years ago. We now manage traffic as a resource much the same way a municipality would/should ration water if there was a shortage.

Customers understand this. For example, if you simply tell somebody they must share a resource such as water, the Internet, or butter (as in WWII), and that they may periodically get a reduced amount, they will likely agree that sharing the resource is better than one person getting all of the resource while others suffer. Well, that is exactly what a NetEqualizer does with Internet resources, albeit in real time. Internet bandwidth is very spiky. It comes and goes in milliseconds and there is no time for a quorum.

We’ll keep an eye on this for you. If you are interested in learning more about how our technology differs from application-based shaping, the following link is very useful:

http://www.netequalizer.com/Compare_NetEqualizer.php

Thank You FISPA Members…


Dear FISPA members,

Thank you for all your kind words in Orlando. We look forward to sponsoring again, and, as promised, we will upgrade the lunch menu next time (if Jim will allow us the honor).

For any of you that missed our talk and are interested in bandwidth control, Processor Magazine did a nice job of honoring us as their product of the week. Check out their article here.

Thanks again!

New NE3000-300 Now Available


APconnections today announced the release of the NetEqualizer NE2000-300. It has all the features of a standard NetEqualizer, CALEA probe, peer-to-peer throttling, priority for voice and optional priority for video.

This unit doubles the effective bandwidth pipe of the current NE2000-150.

For details, contact APconnections at admin@apconnections.net or 303-997-1300.

APconnections/NetEqualizer Featured in Boulder County Business Report


The article below was recently featured in the Boulder County Business Report

APconnections helps shape bandwidth with NetEqualizer
By Jules Marie

LAFAYETTE – Once a frustrated homeowner unable to maintain consistent Internet service, Art Reisman is now a global manufacturer of solutions for clogged bandwidth on the Internet.

Reisman, founder of APconnections, has developed NetEqualizer – a device that minimizes the peaks and valleys of Internet use by distributing bandwidth according to preset rules. Customers include the elusive Blackwater USA and the burgeoning Afghanistan wireless industry. The company also has domestic sales to corporations in industries around the country.

NetEqualizer is a bandwidth-shaping system designed for voice and data networks of 100 to 10,000 users. No changes to the existing network are needed, and it installs in minutes.

“Equalizing is the art form of looking at the usage patterns on the network, and then when things get congested, robbing from the rich to give to the poor,” Reisman said. “Rather than writing hundreds of rules to specify allocations to specific traffic as in traditional application shaping, you can simply assume that large downloads are bad; short, quick traffic is good, and be done with it.”

The software has jettisoned APconnections to the front of Internet traffic jams with its built-in fairness rules. When the network is congested the fairness algorithm favors business-class applications, including voice over Internet protocol, Web browsing, chat, and e-mail while delaying by a second an e-mail with 10 attachments.

Growing in popularity is AirEqualizer – proprietary software that minimizes disruptions to wireless network users. Reisman said it solves the hidden node problem found in wireless networks. Think of ‘nodes’ as wireless users, and historically the farther a wireless user was from the remote, the less priority those transmissions received. AirEqualizer balances the flow by using latency – similar to a time delay – which essentially blocks dominant nodes from usurping weaker ones.

Sweat equity, 401(k)s and day jobs financed the company. Minimal development costs were incurred as they added software to off-the-shelf hardware. First to market was the Linux Bandwidth Arbitrator – an open-source freeware program. Open source software is shared, and end users can make and suggest changes, but the software is still copyrighted. APconnections reaped the benefits of debugging advice globally and today enjoys worldwide recognition for its popular anti-clogging software programs.

In addition to the accolades received in cyberspace, APconnections advertised with http://www.adwords.google.com and found it to be a very cost-effective way to advertise on a small budget and is largely responsible for their international business growth.

Reisman’s goals have remained the same since 2003 – slow, steady growth. He declined to state his revenues though he did say that he is very profitable, moves 40 units a month and is growing steadily.

NetEqualizer has proprietary features and is no longer free. The basic device starts at $2,000 and with upgrades approaches $6,000. Reisman said he tries to ignore the competition.

“We stay original by not looking at others’ work. I don’t have the philosophy that we have to beat someone to grow or win. Internet optimization is slowly becoming a commodity. We’re not locking you into our solution, and it doesn’t require upgrades every year to keep it running. We do add new features, but we don’t obsolete customers or sell support contract.

“Philosophically, do the best, live in the now, and good things happen,” he said. “I don’t believe in saying we have to make this much money in order to be successful. We don’t have investors so it’s almost a completely stress-free life. We have a vision, we’re healthy, and we’re growing. We measure ourselves on how relaxed we are.”

Equalizing Technology: NetEqualizer Offers A New Approach To Application Shaping


Below is a recent editorial featured on Processor.com

Equalizing Technology
NetEqualizer Offers A New Approach To Application Shaping
by Julie Sartain

Current application shaping products examine the content of Internet packets as they pass through the packet shaper. Using pattern-matching techniques, the packet shaper determines, in real time, the application type of each packet and then proceeds to restrict or allow the data based on a set of rules established by the system administrators.

Administrators can use these programs and define rules to restrict or allow any application that exists, but it takes an incredible amount of effort to keep pace. There is one product, however, that’s trying a new approach called equalizing technology. This product is NetEqualizer (800/918-2763; www.netequalizer.com) from a Colorado-based company called APconnections.

The Problems

According to Art Reisman, CEO at APconnections, pattern-matching techniques work on most classified packets, but what if the rules are set to restrict all packets containing ASCII characters or words such as Rhapsody, Napster, or bit torrent? One of these packets might contain a company-wide memo explaining the corporate policies regarding the usage of these programs on company computers. Pattern-matching rules would restrict this memo attachment.

In addition, many companies intentionally refuse to classify their communications, so their packets slip past the application-shaping products. Seems like a small issue, unless hundreds of these junk mail packets are slipping through onto thousands of desktops in your company nationwide on a daily basis. Then it becomes a huge problem, as the bandwidth is usurped to process this unwanted garbage.

Even if an application-shaping product can identify 90% of the spectrum of apps (and that’s a lot), notes Reisman, 10% is still unclassified. Your options are to either monitor and manually classify that 10%, which is very time-consuming and costly, or allow those packets to pass without restrictions.

Solutions

“Our products can, generally, extend the capacity of your Internet from 25 to 50%,” says Reisman. “This means you can have that many more people using the Internet without adding more bandwidth.”

There is always the potential for a few users to overwhelm the Internet connection, he notes. But when applied to many verticals such as ISPs, libraries, schools, colleges, and businesses with 50 or more employees, the NetEqualizer prevents this from happening.

“NetEqualizer appliances automatically shape traffic based on built-in fairness rules,” notes Reisman. “This method allows network administrators/operators to quickly and easily bring network traffic into balance without having to build and manage extensive policy libraries and all without changes to their existing network infrastructure.”

How It Works

Reisman explains that APconnections looked at how systems keep one process from locking up the whole computer. For example, Microsoft Windows (www.microsoft.com) does not handle this well; however, Linux and Unix, as well as some of the other server equipment that’s available, do. The premise of these products is that no single computer program is allowed to dominate the CPU, so everything that’s running gets a turn. “We then applied this tried-and-true methodology to an Internet link,” says Reisman. “The result is NetEqualizer.”

NetEqualizer uses behavior-based shaping, adds Reisman. It looks at the behavior of abuse on an Internet link and then takes action based on that. When the network is congested, the fairness algorithm favors business-class applications, such as VoIP, Web browsing, chat, and email, at the expense of large file downloads.

The other available products (that is, the competition) try to classify specific varieties of traffic by type. Intuitively, the classification by type is easy for customers to understand, but implementing that process is very time-consuming, and the cost of trying to identify every type of traffic on the Internet is overwhelming and nearly impossible. NetEqualizer, on the other hand, always gets the bad guys because bad behavior is not a function of application type. And, as an added bonus, customers do not have to relicense the technology every month; it just works.

In addition, says Reisman, all the settings can be changed in real time, with no effect on network service quality. And, NetEqualizer allows priority to traffic for hosts that are not supposed to be shaped. Also (for organizations that require 100% network uptime), the NetEqualizer architecture allows customers to build a redundant system by configuring two NetEqualizer products running in parallel.

R&D History

“We started with no backing money, so we built a simple open-source version of the concept and begged people to try it,” says Reisman. The product excelled and then rose to one of the top 100 open-source projects in the world. (That’s considered extremely high when most top open-source projects are targeted to the general consumer.) Then, the company commercialized and enhanced it and contracted with a hardware manufacturer to produce it. There are now more than 1 million end users on six continents behind the NetEqualizer equipment.

“We had many setbacks in the early going,” says Reisman. “Mostly just trying to get the product stable and keep it running on a reasonably priced piece of hardware.”

Most of APconnections’ market is customers who desperately need something but don’t want to pay $50,000 to optimize their $500-a-month Internet trunk. Getting the product stable in heavy use required the company to purchase sophisticated simulation equipment to troubleshoot the last few hard-to-find bugs. (That was more than three years ago.) Since then, APconnections has had reports of its servers in continuous, heavy use for years at a time without rebooting. “We are very proud of that,” says Reisman.

What’s New?

According to Reisman, the company has recently adopted this technology into an AP (access point) and, quite by accident, have solved a common problem called the hidden node issue, which has plagued 802.11 operators for years. There are other options for this problem, but these choices lock customers into proprietary solutions. APconnections’ solution is completely compatible with existing 802.11 wireless technologies, so customers can mix and match its AP without replacing everything.

NetEqualizer Trivia, Famous Encounters with bandwidth shaping


What do Lance Armstrong, Barack Obama have in common with NetEqualizer? Read on to find out.

The engineers at APconnections, being the geeks that they are, like to play a little game of trying to make a valid case for famous people who may have used a NetEqualizer. Loosely defined this means have they ever logged into the Internet through an ISP provider that uses NetEqualizer for their bandwidth control.

Obviously most of this game based on p racticalspeculation, but there are some compelling cases.  In the case of Barack Obama it is a matter of timing. The diplomatic American Embassy in Kabul runs an unsecured  wireless internet service for employees and visitors. A few months ago they purchased and installed a NetEqualizer , seems there internet link was getting a bit overloaded.  We also know from our sources inside the embassy, that Diplomats, including US Congressmen and Senators, will often stop over, open their laptops and use the wireless network in the Embassy to check personal e-mail. So it is very likely that various US Senators and Congressmen have been logged into our system there, especially over the holidays when they are drumming up support by posing with the troops.  Unfortunately our research shows that Senator Obama’s recent world wide tour had him in Kabul on July 19th. The NetEqualizer did not arrive at the embassy until early October of this year.  A minor disappointment, but things are looking good for the next president.

Note: Sitting presidents do not use public Wi-fi systems when traveling.

Other likely famous users include Lance Armstrong. The Olympic Cycling training center in Colorado springs deploys a NetEqualizer going on two years now certainly Lance has stopped by once or twice over the years?  As for Sarah Palin,  we have quite a few units scattered around  regional ISPs in the state of Alaska.  If Sarah Palin gets out and about with her laptop, there is a good chance she has logged into the Internet through one of our units.

Since we first published this article back in November 2008, we added the Vancouver International Airport as well 100,000 additional users through ISPs throughout the world. We’ll keep searching for celebrity sitings as they come in.

Taming the Net in the Middle East


Here’s an article about NetEqualizer’s work in Iraq and Afghanistan that appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera

In the event of a possible system crash, the NetEqualizer re-prioritizes power distribution giving priority to things like e-mail and Web browsing over large file downloads, preventing a system shut-down and helping with the congestion of the Internet network.

“Think of it as regulating traffic as it merges onto the highway,” said Art Reisman, CEO and president of APconnections. “If it weren’t for the NetEqualizer, traffic would come to a standstill. It puts a delay on things like big downloads to slow them down.

“But the key is it’s temporary — if we didn’t, everything in the network would come to a halt.”

The NetEqualizer has become the “bandwidth optimization technology” of overseas companies such as Afghan Wireless, which was the first firm to provide public Internet access in Afghanistan, and Blackwater USA, the controversial personal-security company with the largest presence in the region.

Afghan Telecom, which became the official telecommunications provider of the government when it was incorporated by the Ministry of Communications and Internet Technology in 2005, also uses the NetEqualizer. APconnections currently has supplied NetEqualizer to more than 10 companies in the region.

“We don’t want to take credit for anything grand over there,” Reisman said. “We’re just providing a service. But it’s good they have a product like ours that they can count on. But we’re not going to create an office over there or anything.”

NetEqualizers are used all over the world, including Africa. This summer, APconnections announced it has served more than 1 million Internet users.

APconnections competes with the Israeli product NetEnforcer and the California-based company Packeteer, both of which provide products with similar services as the NetEqualizer.

“We do things a little differently than those companies, but still accomplish the same things a little cheaper,” Reisman said. “We’ve kind of developed a cult following. We’re the smaller player, but the people who use us would never switch.”