Ten Things to Consider When Choosing a Bandwidth Shaper


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.

Update 2015

Note : We are seeing quite a bit of Encryption on  common applications. We strongly recommend avoiding layer 7 type devices for public Internet traffic as the accuracy is diminishing due to the fact that encrypted traffic is UN-classifieble , a heuristics based behavior based approach is advised

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

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


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 »

Network World Blog missing the boat on Packeteer’s decline in revenue


The one thing bad about being a publicly traded company is that you cannot hide from your declining sales, in the following network world blog post and related comments ,the authors make some good points as to where and why they would choose Cisco Wan Optimization over Blue Coat and vice-versa. They also comment on all sorts of reasons why Blue Coat’s revenue in this area is declining , although they neglect one obvious reason.

Prices of bandwidth have fallen quite rapidly over the last 10 years. In some larger metro areas  Internet access runs for as little as $300 per month for 10 megabits. The same link 10 years ago would have run close to $5000 per month or more. Despite falling bandwdith prices,  WAN optimization solutions from the likes Blue Coat, Cisco and Riverbed, remain relatively high.  Many ptential WAN optimization customers will  simply upgrade  their bandwidth rather than invest in new optimization equipment.  You would think that vendors would lower their prices to compete, and they are to some degree; however the complexity of their core solutions requires a mimumum price floor.   The factors that create the price floor on equipment are related to, methodology  of the internal technology, and sales channel costs,  and unfortunately these fixed cost factors cannot keep pace with falling bandwidth prices .

Our prediction is that WAN optimization devices will  slowly become a commodity with automated reduced complexity. One measure of the current complexity is   all the acronyms being tossed around describing WAN optimization. The sales pitches filled with accronyms clearly corrolate that perhaps these devices are just too complicated for the market to continue to use. They will become turn key simple and lower cost or die. No player is bigger than the Market force of cheaper bandwith.

Related articles:

ROI calculation for packet shaping equipment

Does lower cost bandwidth foretell a decline in bandwidth shaper sales?

http://www.networkworld.com/community/comment/reply/46590

Why is NetEqualizer the low price leader in Bandwidth Control


Recently we have gotten feed back from customers that stating they almost did not consider the NetEqualizer because the price was so much less than solutions  from the likes of: Packeteer (Blue Coat), Allot NetEnforcer and Exinda.

Sometimes low price will raise a red flag on a purchase decision, especially when the price is an order of magnitude less than the competition.

Given this feed back we thought it would be a good idea to go over some of the major cost structure differences betwen APconnections maker of the NetEqualizer and some of the competition.

1) NetEqualizer’s are sold mostly direct by word of mouth. We do not have a traditional indirect sales channel.

– The down side for us as a company is that this does limit our reach a bit.  Many IT departments do not have the resources to seek out new products on their own, and are limited to only what is presented to them.

– The good news for all involved is selling direct takes quite a bit of cost out of delivering the product. Indirect  sales channels need to be incented to sell,  Often times they will steer the customer toward the highest commission product in their arsenal.  Our  direct channel eliminates this overhead.

-The other good thing about not using a sales channel is that when you talk to one of our direct (non commissioned) sales reps you can be sure that they are experts on the NetEqualizer. With a sales channel a sales rep often sells many different kinds of products and they can get rusty on some of the specifics.

2) We have bundled our Manufacturing with a company that also produces a popular fire wall. We also have a back source to manufacture our products at all times thus insuring a steady flow of product without the liability of a Manufacturing facility

3) We have never borrowed money to run Apconnections,

– this keeps us very stable and able to withstand market fluctuations

– there are no greedy investors calling the shots looking for a return and demanding higher prices

4) The NetEqualizer is simple and elegant

– Many products keep adding features to grow their market share we have a solution that works well but does not require constant current engineering

$1000 Discount Offered Through NetEqualizer Cash For Conversion Program


After witnessing the overwhelming popularity of the government’s Cash for Clunkers new car program, we’ve decided to offer a similar deal to potential NetEqualizer customers. Therefore, this week, we’re announcing the launch of our Cash for Conversion program.The program offers owners of select brands (see below) of network optimization technology a $1000 credit toward the list-price purchase of NetEqualizer NE2000-10 or higher models (click here for a full price list). All owners have to do is send us your old (working or not) or out of license bandwidth control technology. Products from the following manufacturers will be accepted:

  • Exinda
  • Packeteer/Blue Coat
  • Allot
  • Cymphonics
  • Procera

In addition to receiving the $1000 credit toward a NetEqualizer, program participants will also have the peace of mind of knowing that their old technology will be handled responsibly through refurbishment or electronics recycling programs.

Only the listed manufacturers’ products will qualify. Offer good through the Labor Day weekend (September 7, 2009). For more information, contact us at 303-997-1300 or admin@apconnections.net.

APconnections Announces 50-Percent-Off Sale of New NetEqualizer-Lite


Beginning May 26, all customers purchasing a full size NetEqualizer 2000/3000 model will qualify for a 50-percent discount on the NetEqualizer-Lite. In addition, the offer will be extended to all existing NetEqualizer users who will also be entitled to the 50-percent discount on their first NetEqualizer-Lite purchase. This offer is valid until June 30, 2009. Limit two per customer.

As well as offering users the same services available through previously released NetEqualizer models, the NetEqualizer-Lite is Power-over-Ethernet (PoE), handling up to 10 megabits of traffic and 200 users. Furthermore, the NetEqualizer-Lite also serves to solve hidden node issues without customers having to change their existing access points.*

Although the core technology behind the NetEqualizer has not changed, with the latest release price point, many ISPs and businesses are deploying the NetEqualizer-Lite closer to end users, often directly behind congested access points.

After just over a month in the field, NetEqualizer-Lite users are reporting they can now easily increase Internet subscribers by 30 to 50 percent at once congested towers and AP sites. For example, a customer with an 802.11b radio now has 100 subscribers on his network and is still running smoothly. In the past, this customer’s norm for saturation stood at roughly 20 users, but he is now enjoying a 500-percent increase after installing the NetEqualizer-Lite. This is translating into both higher revenues and a more satisfied customer base.

The NetEqualizer-Lite lists at $1499. In addition to the 50-percent discount, we are also currently offering volume discounts. Pricing information on all other NetEqualizer models is available online at http://www.netequalizer.com. For more information, please contact APconnections at 1-800-918-2763 or admin@apconnections.net.

*Hidden nodes are a problem frequently encountered by commercial wireless operators that has previously been solved using APconnections’ AirEqualizer technology. The NetEqualizer-Lite’s capability to offer similar solutions is simply one of the multiple benefits of the technology for administrators of networks of many different types and sizes.

NetEqualizer White Paper Comparison with Traditional Layer-7 (Deep Packet Inspection Products)


Updated with new reference material May 4th 2009

How NetEqualizer compares to Packeteer, Allot, Cymphonics, Exinda

We often get asked how NetEqualizer compares to Packeteer, Allot, Cymphonics, Exinda and a plethora of other well-known companies that do layer 7 application shaping (packet shaping). After several years of these questions, and discussing different aspects with former and current application shaping IT administrators, we’ve developed a response that should clarify the differences between NetEqualizers 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 see just the bullet chart, you can skip to the end now, but if you’re looking to have the question answered as objectively as possible, please take a few minutes to read on

In the following sections, we will cover specifically when and where application shaping (deep packet inspection) 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 the NetEqualizer and its behavior-based shaping fits into the landscape of application shaping, and how in some cases the NetEqualizer is a much better alternative.

First off, let’s discuss the accuracy of application shaping. To do this, we need to review the basic mechanics of how it works.

Application shaping is defined as the ability to identify traffic on your network by type and then set customized policies to control the flow rates for each particular type. For example, Citrix, AIM, Youtube, and BearShare are all applications that can be uniquely identified.

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 is the address where it is being sent. On the inside is the data/payload that is being transmitted. 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.

At the heart of all current application shaping products is special software that examines the content of Internet packets as they pass through the packet shaper. Through various pattern matching techniques, the packet shaper determines in real time what type of application a particular flow is. It then proceeds to take action to possibly restrict or allow the data based on a rule set designed by the system administrator.

For example, the popular peer-to-peer application Kazaa actually has the ASCII characters “Kazaa” appear in the payload, and hence a packet shaper can use this keyword to identify a Kazaa application. Seems simple enough, but suppose that somebody was downloading a Word document discussing the virtues of peer-to-peer and the title had the character string “Kazaa” in it. Well, it is very likely that this download would be identified as Kazaa and hence misclassified. After all, downloading a Word document from a Web server is not the same thing as the file sharing application Kazaa.

The other issue that constantly brings the accuracy of application shaping under fire is that some application writers find it in their best interest not be classified. In a mini arms race that plays out everyday across the world, some application developers are constantly changing their signature and some have gone as far as to encrypt their data entirely.

Yes, it is possible for the makers of application shapers to counter each move, and that is exactly what the top companies do, but it can take a heroic effort to keep pace. The constant engineering and upgrading required has an escalating cost factor. In the case of encrypted applications, the amount of CPU power required for decryption is quite intensive and impractical and other methods will be needed to identify encrypted p2p.

But, this is not to say that application shaping doesn’t work in all cases or provide some value. So, let’s break down where it has potential and where it may bring false promises. First off, the realities of what really happens when you deploy and depend on this technology need to be discussed.

Accuracy and False Positives

As of early 2003, we had a top engineer and executive join APConnections direct from a company that offered application shaping as one of their many value-added technologies. He had first hand knowledge from working with hundreds of customers who were big supporters of application shaping:

The application shaper his company offered could identify 90 percent of the spectrum of applications, which means they left 10 percent as unclassified. So, right off the bat, 10 percent of the traffic is unknown by the traffic shaper. Is this traffic important? Is it garbage that you can ignore? Well, there is no way to know with out any intelligence, so you are forced to let it go by without any restriction. Or, you could put one general rule over all of the traffic – perhaps limiting it to 1 megabit per second max, for example. Essentially, if your intention was 100-percent understanding and control of your network traffic, right out the gate you must compromise this standard.

In fairness, this 90-percent identification actually is an amazing number with regard to accuracy when you understand how daunting application shaping is. Regardless, there is still room for improvement.

So, that covers the admitted problem of unclassifiable traffic, but how accurate can a packet shaper be with the traffic it does claim to classify? Does it make mistakes? There really isn’t any reliable data on how often an application shaper will misidentify an application. To our knowledge, there is no independent consumer reporting company that has ever created a lab capable of generating several thousand different applications types with a mix of random traffic, and then took this mix and identified how often traffic was misclassified. Yes, there are trivial tests done one application at a time, but misclassification becomes more likely with real-world complex and diverse application mixes.

From our own testing of application technology freely available on the Internet, we discovered false positives can occur up to 25 percent of the time. A random FTP file download can be classified as something more specific. Obviously commercial packet shapers do not rely on the free technology in open source and they actually may improve on it. So, if we had to estimate based on our experience, perhaps 5 percent of Internet traffic will likely get misclassified. This brings our overall accuracy down to 85 percent (combining the traffic they don’t claim to classify with an estimated error rate for the traffic they do classify).

Constantly Evolving Traffic

Our sources say (mentioned above) that 70 percent of their customers that purchased application shaping equipment were using the equipment primarily as a reporting tool after one year. This means that they had stopped keeping up with shaping policies altogether and were just looking at the reports to understand their network (nothing proactive to change the traffic).

This is an interesting fact. From what we have seen, many people are just unable, or unwilling, to put in the time necessary to continuously update and change their application rules to keep up with the evolving traffic. The reason for the constant changing of rules is that with traditional application shaping you are dealing with a cunning and wise foe. For example, if you notice that there is a large contingent of users using Bittorrent and you put a rule in to quash that traffic, within perhaps days, those users will have moved on to something new: perhaps a new application or encrypted p2p. If you do not go back and reanalyze and reprogram your rule set, your packet shaper slowly becomes ineffective.

And finally lest we not forget that application shaping is considered by some to be a a violation of Net Neutrality.

When is application shaping the right solution?

There is a large set of businesses that use application shaping quite successfully along with other technologies. This area is WAN optimization. Thus far, we have discussed the issues with using an application shaper on the wide open Internet where the types and variations of traffic are unbounded. However, in a corporate environment with a finite set and type of traffic between offices, an application shaper can be set up and used with fantastic results.

There is also the political side to application shaping. It is human nature to want to see and control what takes place in your environment. Finding the best tool available to actually show what is on your network, and the ability to contain it, plays well with just about any CIO or IT director on the planet. An industry leading packet shaper brings visibility to your network and a pie chart showing 300 different kinds of traffic. Whether or not the tool is practical or accurate over time isn’t often brought into the buying decision. The decision to buy can usually be “intuitively” justified. By intuitively, we mean that it is easier to get approval for a tool that is simple to conceptually understand by a busy executive looking for a quick-fix solution.

As the cost of bandwidth continues to fall, the question becomes how much a CIO should spend to analyze a network. This is especially true when you consider that as the Internet expands, the complexity of shaping applications grows. As bandwidth prices drop, the cost of implementing such a product is either flat or increasing. In cases such as this, it often does not make sense to purchase a $15,000 bandwidth shaper to stave off a bandwidth upgrade that might cost an additional $200 a month.

What about the reporting aspects of an application shaper? Even if it can only accurately report 90 percent of the actual traffic, isn’t this useful data in itself?

Yes and no. Obviously analyzing 90 percent of the data on your network might be useful, but if you really look at what is going on, it is hard to feel like you have control or understanding of something that is so dynamic and changing. By the time you get a handle on what is happening, the system has likely changed. Unless you can take action in real time, the network usage trends (on a wide open Internet trunk) will vary from day to day.1 It turns out that the most useful information you can determine regarding your network is an overall usage patter for each individual. The goof-off employee/user will stick out like a sore thumb when you look at a simple usage report since the amount of data transferred can be 10-times the average for everybody else. The behavior is the indicator here, but the specific data types and applications will change from day to day and week to week

How does the NetEqualizer differ and what are its advantages and weaknesses?

First, we’ll summarize equalizing and behavior-based shaping. Overall, it is a simple concept. 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. 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.

This behavior-based approach usually mirrors what you would end up doing if you could see and identify all of the traffic on your network, but doesn’t require the labor and cost of classifying everything. Applications such as Web surfing, IM, short downloads, and voice all naturally receive higher priority while large downloads and p2p receive lower priority. This behavior-based shaping does not need to be updated constantly as applications change.

Trusting a heuristic solution such as NetEqualizer is not always an easy step. Oftentimes, customers are concerned with accidentally throttling important traffic that might not fit the NetEqualizer model, such as video. Although there are exceptions, it is rare for the network operator not to know about these potential issues in advance, and there are generally relatively few to consider. In fact, the only exception that we run into is video, and the NetEqualizer has a low level routine that easily allows you to give overriding priority to a specific server on your network, hence solving the problem.

Another key element in behavior-based shaping is connections. Equalizing takes care of instances of congestion caused by single-source bandwidth hogs. However, the other main cause of Internet gridlock (as well as bringing down routers and access points) is p2p and its propensity to open hundreds or perhaps thousands of connections to different sources on the Internet. Over the years, the NetEqualizer engineers have developed very specific algorithms to spot connection abuse and avert its side effects.

This overview, along with the summary table below, should give you a good idea of where the NetEqualizer stands in relation to packet shaping.

Summary Table

Application based shaping

  • good for static links where traffic patterns are constant

  • good for intuitive presentations makes sense and easy to explain to non technical people
  • detailed reporting by application type
  • not the best fit for wide open Internet trunks
    • costly to maintain in terms of licensing

    • high initial cost

    • constant labor to tune with changing application spectrum

    • expect approximately 15 percent of traffic to be unclassified

  • only a static snapshot of a changing spectrum may not be useful
  • false positives may show data incorrectly no easy way to confirm accuracy
  • violates Net Neutrality

Equalizing

  • not the best for dedicated WAN trunks

  • the most cost effective for shared Internet trunks
  • little or no recurring cost or labor
  • low entry cost
  • conceptual takes some getting used to
  • basic reporting by behavior used to stop abuse
  • handles encrypted p2p without modifications or upgrades
  • Supports Net Neutrality

1 The exception is a corporate WAN link with relatively static usage patterns.

Note: Since we first published this article, deep packet inspection also known as layer 7 shaping has taken some serious industry hits with respect to US based ISPs

Related articles:

Why is NetEqualizer the low price leader in bandwidth control

When is deep packet inspection a good thing?

NetEqualizer offers deep packet inspection comprimise.

Internet users attempt to thwart Deep Packet Inspection using encryption.

Why the controversy over deep Packet inspection?

World wide web founder denounces deep packet inspection

%d bloggers like this: