baldur.norddahl at gmail.com
Wed Sep 21 14:32:58 UTC 2016
It appears all complaints are from SP doing wireless. I am going to go with
a yes and put forth a these that these guys have a common factor somewhere.
It could be equipment from a some popular vendor of wireless or maybe some
common method to throttle that is popular in the wireless community.
I note that while we have slow links we have no throttling or bandwidth
management going on except for the buffering that happens in the DSLAM.
Also there is no way to cheat. If you send 4 mbps to a 2 mbps DSL it will
drop half of the traffic and TCP will not survive that. The CDN would have
an effective transfer rate approaching zero for that customer. That seems
to be a rather bad business proposal seen from the view if the CDN so they
would not do that. The other customers will be unaffected as the DSLAM
itself has plenty of capacity.
Den 21. sep. 2016 14.36 skrev "Josh Reynolds" <josh at kyneticwifi.com>:
> With so many geographically diverse complaints on many hardware routing
> and switching platforms, I'm going to go with a "no".
> On Sep 21, 2016 4:04 AM, "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com>
>> How come we have never seen this problem? We have a ton of DSL and many
>> of those are slow, but no customer complaints about overloaded lines from
>> CDN networks.
>> Could it be that the way you throttle the bandwidth is defect? It is easy
>> to blame the other guy but could it be that you are doing it wrong?
More information about the NANOG