Caps (was Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

Sat Dec 7 01:34:32 UTC 2013

On Dec 6, 2013 5:16 PM, "Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>>
>>
>> I realize most of the NANOG operators are not running end user networks
anymore.   Real consumption data:
>>
>> Monthly_GB    Count    Percent
>> <100GB         3658     90%
>> 100-149         368     10%
>> 150-199         173     4.7%
>> 200-249          97     2.6%
>> 250-299          50     1.4%
>> 300-399          27     0.7%
>> 400-499           9     0.25%
>> 500-599           4     0.1%
>> 600-699           4     0.1%
>> 700-799           3     0.1%
>> >800              1     0.03%
>>
>> Overall average:  36GB/mo
>>
>>
>> The user at 836MB per month is on a 3.5Mbps plan paying $49.95/mo.   Do
we do anything about it?  No - because our current AUP and policies say he
can do that.
>>
>
> Thanks for the stats, real life is always refreshing :)
>
> It seems to me -- all things being equal -- that the real question is
whether Mr. Hog is impacting your
> other users. If he's not, then what difference does it make if he
consumes the bits, or if the bits over
> the air are not consumed at all? Is it because of transit costs? That
seems unlikely because Mr. Hog's
> 800gb is dwarfed by your 3658*36gb (almost three orders of magnitude).
>
> If he is impacting other users, doesn't this devolve into a shaping
problem which is there regardless
> of whether it's him or 4 people at 200GB?
>
> Mike
>

In a cell network, mr. Hog is most definately negatively impacting users on
the same radio sector and backhaul, both of which are dimensioned and
operated (like the internet as a whole) on statistical multiplexing.

If mr hog is blasting 50mbs on a 100meg link 24/7, nobody will perceive
100mbs since 50mbs is always consumed by mr hog.

Statistical multiplexing works great 99% of the time, and i personally
would rather not engineer the whole system to fight the 1% extreme users

CB