Domain: sandvine.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to sandvine.com.
Comments · 24
-
Re:Anything that wrests away control
No, they are just pissed at having to buy new Sandvines and support contracts to filter traffic. Trust me, they ain't cheap.
-
Re:What are you downloading?
You missed one. The number one bandwidth application on the Internet. YouTube.
FWIW, our household of four uses an average of 350 GB a month. Despite Comcast's claim that the average account uses 20 to 25 GB a month.How is that "despite?" They're not saying that nobody uses that much, just that the average customer does. FYI, Sandvine agrees, they peg mean US broadband usage at 29GB/month. Median is quite a bit lower than that.
-
Re:Water is wet
I think you mis-remember.
Perhaps. So I'll tell you what, instead of going off of my memory I'll simply play a trump card that renders your entire argument moot. I'm not sure what in the hell would possess you to think that 19 billion could ever come close to rebuilding the entire global internet infrastructure, but I'll tell you this: It costs some 5 times that amount minimum each year just to keep ISPs running, forget about rebuilding it from scratch, and forget about the non-ISP infrastructure (which by far does not make up the whole internet.) The US ISP figure alone is already well known and proven to cost more than your figure every year, at any rate.
www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/03/14/how-much-does-the-internet-cost-to-run/
Think about this for a second: How much less infrastructure would we need if we wouldn't spend 90% of SMTP traffic on spam and half of HTTP traffic on advertisement and tracking?
Probably very little, if any at all. Given your existing belief that 19 billion could rebuild the internet (or even rebuild it multiple times as you ambiguously implied,) I don't believe you can even fathom what you're talking about here. Believe it or not, SMTP and web traffic is gzip compressed. Yes, you read that right, it is quite literally the same algorithm as the gzip binary found in a *nix environment. Gzip compresses that kind of traffic especially well (here's a technical exercise for you: run wireshark and analyze your web traffic as you send and receive it across the wire.) Another algorithm called deflate is also commonly used. Not only that, but it only makes up a very tiny portion of the overall internet traffic.
In fact, web traffic alone makes up perhaps 16% of the global internet's bandwidth usage. SMTP traffic is so small that it actually makes up for less than a single percent.
https://www.sandvine.com/downl...
As for your advertising? These come in the form of cookies that typically sit in the range of tens to hundreds of bytes. That is a very tiny portion of web traffic.
I'm not sure what kind of communist revolution you're trying to inspire here, but these notions about the internet having no commercial dependence, or that advertising is hogging the pipes and possibly ruining the internet (quite the opposite in fact) are heavily heavily flawed.
Thank you, and perhaps consider paying cuba, north korea, or venezuela a visit before you start that revolution, I'm sure they'll give you some handy tips on how to properly build propaganda, because what you're doing isn't working.
-
Re:Youtube?
The numbers given for Netflix and Youtube are all peak period figures, usually the local evening. Take a look at the Sandvine report at https://www.sandvine.com/downloads/general/global-internet-phenomena/2013/2h-2013-global-internet-phenomena-report.pdf .
-
Re:So, how long before...
Guess what Sandvine is selling: http://www.sandvine.com/customers/cable_providers.asp "Differentiated Services -- prioritize multimedia applications to ensure a high-quality online experience for subscribers (VoIP, IPTV, gaming)"
-
Re:Anonymous Coward.It's interesting that a whitepaper provided by Sandvine posits that their equipment actually protects Net Neutrality with "fair allocation of network resources between potentially competing uses of the network." Stating, "the greedy nature of applications and the over-subscription model of the Internet challenges network operators and the regulatory environment as they strive to maintain Internet freedoms that subscribers expect from the Industry". http://www.sandvine.com/general/getfile.asp?FILEID=37
Can you believe it? I'm sure Comcast execs bought right into this.
-
Comcast is actually doing just what has been......Comcast is actually are doing just what has been alleged.
Traffic Management
From http://www.sandvine.com/solutions/p2p_policy_mngmt.asp
Manage Growing Bandwidth Demands. Ensure Subscriber Satisfaction.
File-sharing traffic continues to dominate service provider networks despite earlier suggestions that Peer-to-Peer (P2P) applications would diminish with emerging online trends and industry pressure. This popular technology has become a mass-market application and remains a key driver for broadband adoption in today's competitive market.
The implication for service providers is clear: file-sharing will continue to consume bandwidth and stress both the access network and Internet transit links. Proactive steps are needed to manage these immense costs and with broader subscriber usage, an intelligent approach to managing P2P traffic that preserves the online experience must be considered
Sandvine's Intelligent Traffic Management solution offers the widest range of policy management options to significantly reduce transit bandwidth costs and CAPEX spending on access networks. Service providers can adopt new intelligent techniques or more traditional approaches depending on their business environment.
With Sandrine's subscriber-friendly solutions, service providers can achieve cost savings while increasing customer loyalty. -
Re:Traffic Analysis
They cut any connection open too long or any IP have "too many" open connections, they are also doing deep packet inspection with the Sandvine Policy Traffic Switch or something similar.
-
Re:Why concentrate on "throttling"?
It's impossible to workaround the Comcast (or should I say Sandvine ) technique by only fixing something on your end . Those forged reset packets are going to both participants in the conversation. Because both sides think the other person wants to hang up, the session is permanently discarded. It's then up the application to decide if it wants to initiate a new conversation. This wouldn't be so obnoxious to the non-bit torrent world if it wasn't also harming other systems, such as Hamachi VPN, Lotus Notes, and sometimes even Google (still can't explain the logic behind that, but there are packet traces to prove it).
-
Re:Makes me wonder
I have been told that they are using Sandvine.
http://www.sandvine.com/products/p2p_element.asp -
Re:This may have been considered already, but...
... if Comcast is essentially attempting to disable Bitorrent, are they by any chance either violating or subverting one or more RFCs? Substitute the proper term for 'violating', that was the strongest word I could come up with quickly. According to some sources, Comcast is likely using Sandvine equipment near their headends to accomplish this feat. And I don't think you understand the nature of RFCs. I recall that in the Early Days of the Internet, not abiding by the RFCs would get you in hot water. Especially screwing up with SMTP would do it, but even bad behaviour due to your incompetence would get your T-1 unclocked, and it would take a few calls to the powers that be to assure them that you found someone who knew what they were doing and that problem wouldn't occur again. At least not for a while. Respectfully, you're confused. RFCs exist as a standardization tool to facilitate predictable interoperability between different vendor's devices and/or between autonomous networks. They're not binding agreements.
If a device manufacturer's software/hardware is compliant with a given RFC, you can pretty much expect it to work well with another party's RFC-compliant product. Even 100% mutual compliance did not guarantee 100% interoperability, because most RFCs have sections of flexibility where vendors can choose to implement a feature or not.
Note that none of this has any binding enforcement or punitive component. Vendors voluntarily choose to comply with the RFCs for which they see the most benefit (read: profit) for their product. If they try to comply and fail, customers (or compliant parties wishing to interoperate) may complain and ask them to come into compliance, but no "powers that be" will "unclock" their T-1s or whatever. Also, in many cases, manufacturers will just choose not to comply with an RFC if they don't feel it's worthwhile.
You could be thinking of how ISPs sometimes will shut down connections to networks who, through mis-configuration or maliciousness, cause trouble. This still happens, but it was more common when the Internet was a mostly a small, close-knit community of operators. As a practice, it works best when the mis-behaving network is either a paying customer or a peer network who highly values your traffic. If the misbehaving network is someone you pay for connectivity, or a peer whose traffic *you* highly value, it's not as wise or effective.
Comcast is a big enough consumer ISP that they would be hard to bully into behaving a different way. For example, Amazon and Google get their service from ISPs A & B respectively. Let's say that ISPs A & B decide Comcast is behaving badly. So ISPs A & B stop exchanging traffic with Comcast. What happens next? Amazon and Google call them and say, "WTF are you doing?! Those are our customers you're cutting us off from!! Get us back in touch with them NOW or we're gone." See the problem? Ultimately, this may be Comcast clinging to their ToS and 'server' restrictions, and that would mean Comcast users won't be sharing out Bitorrent files. Bummer. Pretty much what's happening, yes. Another wrinkle, I wonder if Comcast sends forged RSTs to Comcast users sharing with *other* Comcast users. Intranetwork traffic shouldn't 'cost' so much for Comcast. From the same sources as above, it does not appear that they are interfering with subscriber-to-subscriber connections (yet). Of course, that's not the point. Comcast is trying to avoid costs due to the volume of Bitorrent traffic that leaves them paying for NAP ports, lines to other ISPs, and routers/switches to manage all this.
In other words, they are trying to control costs by controlling usage. Exactly. And for the record, professionally as an operator of a service provider network, and personally as a residential customer of Comcast, I think what they're is doing is very wrong. I wouldn't do it to my customers, and If I had a viable alternative for home use, I'd jump in a heartbeat. -
Re:Question....What hardware/software would carriers have to use to do this?
This article on Yahoo! News points to Sandvine.
However, neither Comcast or Sandvine would comment about the technology being used.
-
Sandvine Inc. PPE router
Companies like Sandvine Inc. transparently do this -- effectively conflating geographic and cost network topologies.
http://www.sandvine.com/products/p2p_element.asp
-r. -
Re:Time for ISPs to kick them off their networks
The ISP's don't want to spend the money on new hard/software to better track users traffic. I work for a company http://www.sandvine.com/ (not to advertise) who's main focus is the traffic. If more ISP's spent a little money now, and managed the traffic a little better, they could prevent spam from ever spreading. But I guess you are right.
"The problem is that to an ISP, you're just a $50 check every month"
Anonymous Coward,
M.Smith -
Re:why exactly would they shoot themselves?Carriers want to create additional revenue streams by providing QoS for certain internet services. Unfortunately, this is not a matter of "if" but of "when."
The available technology for network traffic management is becoming extremely sophisticated -- check out the offerings of Sandvine and Allot.
With the products from these vendors (among others), carriers can prioritize traffic across their entire network -- in some cases this becomes a sizable chunk of the Internet. The traffic management products integrate seamlessly to the billing systems -- think "click here for a 10 minute, 2 GB speed boost for $10."
At some point, some website will sign a deal to guarantee a certain amount of throughput to their site, or for a special event, etc. It starts with carriers "recouping costs" by ensuring QoS on the Superbowl and then quickly gets ugly. When will Microsoft Live (Hotmail, etc.) sign a deal to ensure it loads faster than Google?
-
Sandvine PTS - Probably overkill...
Slightly more technical description of services provided. Notable quote: "QoS policies can be set for latency sensitive applications like VoIP and gaming."
If you try to read through the buzzwordese it might actually make sense. Although, I think this is probably overkill for what you want.
-
Sandvine PTS - Probably overkill...
Slightly more technical description of services provided. Notable quote: "QoS policies can be set for latency sensitive applications like VoIP and gaming."
If you try to read through the buzzwordese it might actually make sense. Although, I think this is probably overkill for what you want.
-
Re:Dubious
No, what will actually happen is they will deploy products to mitigate the problem much more effectively without pissing off their users (like they are already doing): http://www.sandvine.com
-
Re:Thoughts of a "token minority" on slashdot...
Bittorrent is being actively discriminated against by ISPs, e.g. slowing down long-term Bittorrent seeding.
Do you have a cite for this?
http://www.sandvine.com/solutions/traffic_mgmt.asp -
Has Major ISP started to throttle BT?I'm experiencing this and I'm not alone as evidenced here and here.
Sandvine's product is being speculated as the culprit. More details here. Is there anyway around this? I don't want to be stuck downloading new distros (which are coming soon) with slow BT.
-
Less intrusive... more expensive :-)
We have a piece of equipment by a company called Sandvine which can mitigate virus threats, monitor traffic by protocol, etc. without anything needing to be installed by the actual end user. The drawback in the college setting is that they would need at least one of these boxes for every building on campus in order to effectively mitigate the virus threat. Not only that, but there is a yearly maintainence fee for support from them as well. But the way I see it, with most colleges costing you $10,000+/year to attend school there and live on campus, it's the least they can do if they're serious about "protecting the end-user".
-
Yes, p2p is a bandwidth hog
That's why you get ISP's blocking p2p ports. And when they do, they just piss off their customers. That's why there needs to be more things like this. This may not be the solution but at least it's a step in the right direction.
-
They should use these people's technology...
Sandvine Incorporated has an interesting solution to this situation... Sandvine, Inc.
-
This company might help out...
Sandvine, Incorporated has a p2p optimizer for ISPs - could prove to be interesting...