Slashdot Mirror


How Do Businesses Scale Their Bandwidth Needs?

onebadmutha asks: "I'm technology admin for a very rapidly growing company. We've gone from a fractional T-1, to supplementing that with a snappy DSL line, and now we're running out of reasonable options. I've looked at routers that load-balance, but do so horribly. I've considered splitting up my network users to use several incoming DSL lines, only to be confronted with intranet accessibility issues. None of these provide the kind of redundancy and control that I'd like, and certainly not with a nice pleasant UI that doesn't cause me great grief. I've looked at Open Source router distros (like routerOS, and others) and I've looked at using the full gamut of Microsoft madness. How do other businesses solve this problem of scaling bandwidth needs, without completely unlimited budgets for redundant OC-48 runs?"

29 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Speakeasy Bonded T1? by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not sure if you are in an area where you can get Speakeasy service, but htey allow you to bond up to four T1 lines. I have no experience with the service, but I understand that it is cheaper than a fractional T3 and they provide you with hardware that does it for you transparently. I don't know if there are other service providers that have something similar, but it seems like a good idea.

    1. Re:Speakeasy Bonded T1? by packetmon · · Score: 4, Informative

      I currently work at a communications company (VoIP, IP, PBX, etc.) and I would suggest that before IT managers dish out money for connections, they sit and analyze traffic patterns and do some QoS, policy based routing before kicking out money for a faster connection. Many companies dish out unnecessary money for faster connections when all they have to do is creative filtering beforehand. You take out 20 audio streamers and I guarantee you some of those bottlenecks won't be an issue. I used to work in a small office with about 40 employees. I had a business cable connection with 5mb speed and ran VoIP services, Internet services, etc. without issues. I also set up some cache servers and streamlined what went and came in first, to make sure business came first no matter what. Best thing to do before ordering a faster connection is to do an analysis of the current architecture and go from there.

    2. Re:Speakeasy Bonded T1? by 222 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, but Multilink Encapsulation allows for multiple T1's to be seen as one interface, and I can't imagine an ISP that wouldn't support this.
      It (obviously) requires both T1's to be from the same provider, as there is configuration needed on both ends.

    3. Re:Speakeasy Bonded T1? by mnmn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Forget speakeasy bonded T1, you can bond your standard DSL lines through an OpenBSD firewall using CARP. Read also about VRRP and (HSRP and GLBP) for cisco solutions. They add not only redundancy but also load balancing, and recovery is real fast as opposed to something like RIP2. You can also use OSPF but careful, OpenOSPFD and zebra dont provide load balancing and redundancy of default routes. IOS does.

      I say spend your budget on additional lines instead of cisco smartnet.

      --
      "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    4. Re:Speakeasy Bonded T1? by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 4, Informative

      MRTG can create bandwidth charts for individual ports on most Cisco kit. Run it for 24 hours and then drill-down through the gear to find out who the abusers are.

      You could also install SNMP on the workstations themselves and track it back that way.

      Disable any unused ports and lock active ports to specific MAC addresses to stop the "laptop freeloader" from sucking bits on a rogue PC.

      Finally, start blocking all the ports for incoming and outgoing traffic. Open 443 and 80 for outgoing and then wait for people to call. Open ports on a per-user basis. Workers need department head approval. Dept heads need C*O approval.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  2. Question by 42Penguins · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What, exactly, is the question? Is it: What kind of line should I have? or What kind of router hardware/software should I use? I'll shoot at the first question: You already have a fractional T-1, why not buy the whole thing? It's not as elite as redundant OC-48 lines, but like you said, you can't afford those anyway. If you want a step up from that, get redundant T-1 lines from 2 different providers in case one gets nicked.

  3. Dark fiber Ethernet service, or fractional DS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's how real tech companies do it. If you can get Yipes, Cogent, AboveNet, or some other dark fiber provider to serve you Ethernet service, that's the cheapest way to get a lot of bandwidth (10-100Mb/s range). If you can't, then you get a fractional DS3. Most real providers will let you dial the bandwidth up and down reasonably, so you could start out with a 5-10Mb/s circuit and grow from there.

    Bonding T1s and DSL is neat and all, but if your business actually depends on the Internet working, go with one really good fat pipe and then maybe a thin one (T1 or so) as a backup. Don't mess with complex setups. Complex = new ways to fail.

    1. Re:Dark fiber Ethernet service, or fractional DS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dead on the money AC. You forgot the colo/data-center option, which will generally come with burstable ethernet. This isn't a real tech company though.

      Check the link, which has since been removed. The computers page is especially amusing.

    2. Re:Dark fiber Ethernet service, or fractional DS3 by baptiste · · Score: 4, Insightful
      i can't belive he asked slashdot.. there are plenty of forums out there deticated to this type of stuff.

      Why is it every time someone asks a legitimate IT question on /. the poster is ridiculed with the above statement. Every. Single. Time. I for one think /. is a GREAT place to ask questions like these. Unless you've been the 'jack of all trades' IT guy at a small company, you have no idea what it is like. You're expected to know EVERYthing. Sure - there are forums all over the place dedicated to this specialty or that specialty. And if he was a network admin only, he likely would read those forums every day.

      I think /. is a great place to ask questions like these. Sure you have trolls and ACs who sometime suggest silly solutions. But you also have a LOT of hardened geeks and IT types who have been around the block a few times who make good suggestions. Already here I've seen 3 or 4 solid solutions that he can now consider and do more research on to see which fits his company best.

      Asking /. a question is not a sign of a n00b or bad IT person. What better place than one of the biggest techie readerships on the Internet to ask questions. I find many Ask Slashdot threads to be very informative, filed away for 'future use'

      At least you followed up the standard 'I can't believe he asked /.' with an actual, you know, answer.

      OK, move along nothign to see here. I had to waste a little Karma anyway.

  4. Choices! by 222 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, at my company, we were recently faced with the same dillema.
    There are a couple of options available, though. Although my organization appears to be a bit larger than yours, we've decided to utilize a spare T1 that simply sits there for disaster recovery purposes with Policy Based Routing (We're an all Cisco network, although this can be done on a variety of platforms, including Linux..) This directs traffic from a certain IP (and possibly port, I believe) to a specific interface, so that important data (Citrix, etc) has access to our main pipes while web traffic gets the shaft, so to speak. It uses policy maps to do so; I'm relatively noobish to IOS so maybe someone else can shed some light on this.

    I'm hopefully certain you have explored QoS and are currently implementing it, but even QoS has limits.
    I'm pretty sure a combination of the 2 methods listed above should take care of you. As a network admin, I could care less if web traffic gets dropped on a cheap DSL or cable connection.

    Just my 2c, hope it helps ;)

  5. Understanding networks by jaredmauch · · Score: 2
    You need to understand a bunch of things to solve your problem, and we need some more data too

    1) Where are you located? Changing from a fractional T1 to DSL is usually a downgrade, unless it's some sort of SDSL if you're inside the US.
    2) Do you have any latency/packet reordering requirements? Bad things happen when packets are out of order, and modern routers avoid reordering like the plague to keep bad things(tm) from happening.
    3) What resources do you not need onsite, perhaps some reasonbly priced colo is a better solution for your more resource intensive solutions
    4) What are your true bandwith requirements? Most major cities you can get metro-ethernet or various flavors of dark/dim to lit fiber for cheap.

    Multiple geographically diverse OC48's are not for most people, are you sure this applies to your requirements?

  6. What exactly do you need? by dereference · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Your "requirements" seem to be all over the map. If you want redundancy, that's one thing. If you want simply to scale, that's quite another thing. If you want partitioning, that's yet a different problem.

    Then, ask yourself what kind of traffic you are handling. If you're looking at users surfing the web, you probably needn't be overly concerned with load balancing; if you're receiving tons of inbound traffic to your servers, on the other hand, not only do you need load balancing, but you probably also need to seriously consider co-location solutions for your servers.

    The adminstrative traffic is typically a much lower priority in most companies. I don't know how many users you're talking about, or what they're doing, but most small companies just live with a single (full) T1 until they absolutely need to bond another T1 (where "need" is subject, but should be kept in check, especially given that last bit about not having unlimited funding).

    I guess this is not much of an answer, but these are all important questions you need to be asking yourself well before seeking specific answers. I'm not sure where you're coming from, and I don't mean to accuse you of anything, but taking the approach that you'll know the right answer when you see it is usually flawed from the start.

  7. Whoa, slow down there by misleb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Slow down there, chief. Exactly what kind of company would be going from fractional T-1, to DSL, to... an OC-48? (I sssume you were exaggerating on the OC-48)

    Couple questions:

    1) How many employees are we talking about here?
    2) What are they doing on the internet that is so demanding?
    3) Are you running any web/streaming servers onsite?
    4) Have you gone to any lengths to diagnose exactly what your bottleneck might be?
    5) Are you sure you don't just have a couple of hogs downloading porn all day?

    I know 200+ employee companies that get by with a single T-1 just fine. I'm a little suspicious of your bandwidth needs.

    But if you really meed that much bandwidth for web browsing (I doubt you do), the next step would be a DS-3 circuit at about 45Mbit. But that can be pretty costly for the circuit alone. It would, however, allow you to scale because you'd probably be paying for the bandwidth used and not the full 45Mbit. If you are in a building with other companies who have similar needs, you may be able to split the cost of the circuit and share it.

    Also, depending on your location, you may be able to setup a wireless (not WiFi) deal with someone. Something with real gear, of course. Not just a couple Linksys' with Pringle can antennaes.

    -matthew

    --
    "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  8. What are you using it for? by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this internet access for desktop users? People from outside coming in to your corporate website? VPN connections to other offices? How many users? Are you attempting to syncronize any data across the link? In real time, or overnight?

    The possible set of right answers depends a lot on what you're doing with it.

    Policy based routing plus any number of DSL lines will work for splitting up desktop web access.

    Inbound traffic for the corporate website is pretty much the antithesis of that... outbound traffic is the target, and that ends up being T-1 optimized for small sites and bonded T-1s or faster links for bigger ones.

    VPNs can be symmetrical or asymmetrical. Your mileage may vary.

  9. Sonicwall 4060 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Our company uses a Sonicwall 4060 to load-balance two partial T1s. While it is a bit complex to set up, there's no lack of options on it. It's been extremely reliable too, I'd say its an excellent choice.

  10. honestly by BushCheney08 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In all honesty, after looking over the intouchtechnical.com site, I'm going to go out on a limb here and tell you that you need to find which of your techs is running bittorrent all the time and either teach him how to set upload and download limits or cut him off entirely. As others have said, your posting is all over the map. You openly dismiss more than a few technologies that work quite well in competent hands. You mention fractional T1s, DSL, and OC48 as if you don't even know what they are. It really sounds like you aren't qualified to be the technology admin for a company whose business revolves around providing tech support to other businesses. Hate to say it, but that's what I see from where I'm sitting.

    --
    Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
  11. Intranet and Internet by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the In-Touch website:


    Our Technicians Offer:

    Consultation, Installation, Upgrade,
    and Technical Support of:
    [. . .]
            - Intranet and Internet


    Have you tried dialing zero and asking for one of these technicians?

    -Peter
  12. Ban BitTorrent = problem solved by patio11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You've got a variety of options for banning bitorrent (that is your problem, right? You have done traffic analysis before coming to Slashdot, right?). This is in an escalating hierarchy of how invasive you'll have to be. 1) Tell your employees that bandwidth costs have gone up, that you know BT to be the source of the problem, and that you trust them to do what is necessary. 1.5) Ban BT by policy, threaten severe sanctions up to and including dismissal for skirting the ban. 2) Block the standard BT ports. 3) Filter out BT packets. 4) Install computer forensics software and look for evidence of BT use (pretty much has to be combined with 1.5).

  13. More than bandwidth by misleb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Such a line can easily be brought to it's knees by simply saturating the upstream. ADSL does not work well in business environments with many users. I'd take a full T1 over that 7M/768k DSL line for a business any day.

    -matthew

    --
    "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    1. Re:More than bandwidth by Wdomburg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't make that kind of determination without evaluating the existing and projected traffic and use patterns. Considering this was supplemental bandwidth, it's almost certainly being used for internet access and not critical services. The upstream requirements are likely well below what a business class ADSL line provides. If the problem isn't upstream and you go for a plain T1, you'll bring it to its knees saturating the downstream. :)

      Reliability may be an issue of course. Depends on how much the userbase depends on real-time access to the internet. If most of the users rely on intranet resources, no biggie. They can live without the web for a little while. On the otherhand, if the company relies heavily on externally hosted applications like CRMs or mail, you likely should have redundant connections, period.

  14. Looting and polluting is not the way by linvir · · Score: 2, Funny
  15. Weigh your options by aelbric · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In short, there are several commercially available choices that may be available depending on latency, bandwidth, price, reliability, and availability.

    1) Classic T-1, 1.5Mbps
    2) IMA (Inverse Multiplexing over ATM) - Essentially bonded T-1s up to about 6 Mbps before the cost of the routers becomes prohibitive
    3) Ethernet Switching - 10Mbps and higher
    4) DS-3 and higher - 45 Mbps and up

    If you need high availability, option 1 is ruled out. IMA is good for speed and availability, but increases complexity. Ethernet switching is fast, but redundancy will cost you and it will require additional CPE devices for security and traffic monitoring. DS-3s and up are reliable and fast, but the cost of high availability (e.g. dual-entrance facilities, multiple providers) is astronomical.

    Set yourself up a matrix of each of the key metrics that make a difference to you. Talk to all your possible providers and populate your matrix with their service responses. Read their SLAs very carefully. Understand how they calculate their measurements. A 99.98% availability can be insufficient depending on how they calculate it. Weight their responses based on your business requirements and then choose the option that best suits your needs.

    If all else fails, bring in a telecommunications expert for a couple hours to help you analyze your options.

    --
    nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
  16. Re:2001 called... by Everleet · · Score: 3, Funny

    Looks like the good folks over at In-Touch Technical *really* need to update their computers page

    They would have uploaded a new page, but they're having some trouble with their internet connection...

    --
    It's tragic. Laugh.
  17. You forgot the part... by Atario · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...where morale drops through the floor and people start looking for new jobs.

    Nobody likes living under a fascist big-brother network policy. But, hey, you put those lousy "freeloaders" in their place, huh? That's all that matters, after all...

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    1. Re:You forgot the part... by ednopantz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >fascist?

      Lay off the bong hits kid. Grownups understand that they aren't supposed to be torrenting all day on the boss's network connection. Anyone who quits because they won't be allowed to torrent porn all day does the boss a favor.

    2. Re:You forgot the part... by ePhil_One · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The GP post was discussing torrenting porn

      The post I replied to suggested blocking all internet traffic and reopening holes on a user by user and port by port basis. If users are downloading porn at work, you have an HR issue. If users are streaming audio/video against policy, you have an HR issue. If you don't have a policy about streaming either its not an issue for you or it never occured to you to tell you users its a bad thing. Many users are just clueless about the cumlative effect of streaming, since it works fine at home. Suggest they bring in a radio or CD's

      with your expert knowledge from the bandwidth-management trenches at MacDonalds

      Aw, I didn't know you cared. Rest assured that I know more about the subject than 99% of the IT pros on Slashdot (which really isn't hard), and I'm proud to have knowledge and experience that extends beyond the IT cubicle. Its a pet peeve of mine when folks recommend technical solutions for people management issues (Joey set up a porn screen saver! we must block people from chosing their own screen savers!). It shows a lack of leadership and management ability.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
  18. back when I used to do it by Yonder+Way · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The users hated me because they couldn't stream music to their desks. I would always bring them a Best Buy ad turned to the page with portable radios, CD players, and MP3 players.

    First thing to do is get a hold of your firewall. Block all traffic, in and out. Then create rules to only let in and out specific traffic types with specific end points. Outbound http should only go through your web server. SMTP through your mail server. Don't let ssh out at all unless you must, and even then see if you can determine specific hosts to permit it to and from. Rate limit ssh to make it usable for remote shell access but painful for port forwarding other application types (forwarding http through ssh is an old trick to get around the company logging your web surfing activity).

    Notice I mentioned a squid server. Yes, you need one of those. And yes, you need to force everyone to use it. There is a very good chance your router can do this for you transparently.

    Users will scream. Loudly. Prepare yourself and your management for this. Anyone who thinks they are being treated unfairly needs to submit IN WRITING a business justification for the traffic they want you to permit, which must be approved jointly by IT and HR.

    With an arrangement like this, I was able to keep over 500 users happy on a pair of bonded T1 lines. 3Mbps for 500+ users. The biggest consumer of bandwidth was the 5 person IT department pulling patches for all the different OS's we had to support. Every now and then one of the software developers would think he was being clever and find a way around the outbound blocks on the firewall using an exception in the rules that their manager got approved, but it would end quickly with a very embarassing personal visit from our Director and their own boss within a few minutes of the music streaming starting.

    Broadband to the home has been a mixed blessing. People have gotten too used to having bandwidth-hungry apps at home which is fine when you have 3Mbps+ all to yourself but when you are at work and have to share it, it's time to leave the toys at home and be a considerate network citizen.

    Luckily I don't have to be network cop these days. Someone else gets to do that. Someone that doesn't have a good handle on their network so they are buying way more bandwidth than they really need.

  19. And YOU forgot... by JoeD · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... that it's their network, their rules.

    Some non-work net use is inevitable (like me making this post). But when people are using their workplace's network connection for non-work activities to the extent that it's impacting the performance of the rest of the network, then something has to change.

    For most businesses, there is simply no business reason to allow people to download music and/or stream video to or from the office. It's just like the telephone. Most places don't mind people making personal calls, but they ask that they be reasonable about it, because you're supposed to do your socializing at home, on your own time. It's the same with the office net connection. Nobody cares if you use it to order a book from Amazon, or read the daily news, or browse Slashdot. But if you start hitting iTunes or Youtube, or start doing lots of Ebaying, or share a torrent of last night's "American Idol", then you might be crossing a line.

  20. Is more bandwidth necessary? by ocbwilg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Step 1: Analyze your network traffic and determine if more bandwidth is really necessary. I am an engineer for a company of 300 users, and we get by just fine on a pair of T1 circuits. If you're having bandwidth problems there is a fair chance that someone is hogging all of the bandwidth. Once you filter out the guys streaming audio, video, and using P2P clients (either restrict them to a trickle with QoS or block it completely) I suspect that you will have a lot more bandwidth than you need.

    Now, if you still find that you need more bandwidth, the easiest solution is to purchase a nice router that can handle routing and load balancing over multiple connections. Forget about a cheap LinkSys or NetGear DSL router, get yourself a serious router like the Cisco Integrated Services Routers. For under $3000 you can get one that has expansion slots for up to 4 WICs, and it can handle T1/E1, DSL, voice, etc.

    I would also recommend that you talk to data providers in your area, as they are the people who build and sell these solutions every day. Don't just talk to the telco, talk to other providers as well. Where I work we get our T1 lines from AT&T, but there are several other providers that we could get them from, and the prices do vary some. There is also at least one provider that offers a wireless RF solution for Internet access that works as a line-of-sight basis. In this case you would essentially mount an antenna on your building, point it at their tower, and then hook it into your network. They were offerring speeds significantly faster than T1 but slower than T3 for very competitive prices, and they also offerred bandwidth on demand services (i.e., your usual allotted bandwidth was 10 Mbps, but they had excess capacity to handle spikes in traffic up to 15 Mbps or whatever).

    Honestly, if you have to ask Slashdot how to scale your company's Internet bandwidth, odds are you're working for a pretty small company (because if you're working for a much larger company you would seem to be fairly incompetent for a network engineer). Most small companies wouldn't normally need more bandwidth than can be provided over a couple of T1 connections.