Bandwidth distribution per ip

Karsten Elfenbein karsten.elfenbein at gmail.com
Thu Dec 21 10:35:08 CST 2017


Hi,

sounds like you are hosting the origin for the CDN which causes issues.
Does the CDN care where it is pulling the data from?
Could you place a cheaper origin somewhere else? Like AWS, Italy,
Katar or Amsterdam? For 150k/month you can get a lot of
bandwidth/storage/rack space somewhere else.
An other option could be to use something like origin storage where
the content is stored on a CDN provider server already.
Other than that you could check the hashing with your upstream
provider and make them use layer 4 info as well. If they refuse you
might be able to free up some IPs by reducing ptp links to /31 or some
ugly NAT tricks where ports are pointing to different services. (Mail
ports go to mailserver and http to CDN unit)
For ~$37.5k you can also buy some more prefixes to announce.


Karsten

2017-12-20 18:04 GMT+01:00 Denys Fedoryshchenko <denys at visp.net.lb>:
> On 2017-12-20 17:52, Saku Ytti wrote:
>>
>> On 20 December 2017 at 16:55, Denys Fedoryshchenko <denys at visp.net.lb>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And for me, it sounds like faulty aggregation + shaping setup, for
>>> example,
>>> i heard once if i do policing on some models of Cisco switch, on an
>>> aggregated interface, if it has 4 interfaces it will install 25% policer
>>> on
>>> each interface and if hashing is done by dst ip only, i will face such
>>> issue, but that is old and cheap model, as i recall.
>>
>>
>> One such old and cheap model is ASR9k trident, typhoon and tomahawk.
>>
>> It's actually pretty demanding problem, as technically two linecards
>> or even just ports sitting on two different NPU might as well be
>> different routers, they don't have good way to communicate to each
>> other on BW use. So N policer being installed as N/member_count per
>> link is very typical.
>>
>> ECMP is fact of life, and even thought none if any provider document
>> that they have per-flow limitations which are lower than nominal rate
>> of connection you purchases, these do exist almost universally
>> everywhere. People who are most likely to see these limits are people
>> who tunnel everything, so that everything from their say 10Gbps is
>> single flow, from POV of the network.
>> In IPv6 world at least tunnel encap end could write hash to IPv6 flow
>> label, allowing core potentially to balance tunneled traffic, unless
>> tunnel itself guarantees order.
>>
>> I don't think it's fair for operator to demand equal bandwidth per IP,
>> but you will expose yourself to more problems if you do not have
>> sufficient entropy. We are slowly getting solutions to this, Juniper
>> Trio and BRCM Tomahawk3 can detect elephant flows and dynamically
>> unequally map hash results to physical ports to alleviate the problem.
>
> As person who is in love with embedded systems development, i just watched
> today beautiful 10s of meters long 199x machine, where multi kW VFDs manage
> huge motors(not steppers), dragging synchronously and printing on thin paper
> with crazy speed and all they have is long ~9600 link between a bunch of
> encoders
> and PLC dinosaur managing all this beauty. If any of them will apply a bit
> wrong
> torque, stretched paper will rip apart.
> In fact nothing complex there, and technology is ancient these days.
> Engineers who cannot synchronize and update few virtual "subinstances"
> policing ratio based on feedback, in one tiny, expensive box, with
> reasonable
> update ratio, having in hands modern technologies, maybe incompetent?
>
> National operator doesn't provide IPv6, that's one of the problems.
> In most of cases there is no tunnels, but imperfection still exist.
> When ISP pays ~$150k/month (bandwidth very expensive here), and because
> CDN has 3 units & 3 ingress ips, and carrier have bonding somewhere over
> 4 links, it just means ~$37.5k is lost in rough estimations,
> no sane person will accept that.
> Sometimes one CDN unit are in maintenance, and 2 existing can perfectly
> serve demand, but because of this "balancing" issues - it just go down,
> as half of capacity missing.
>
> But, tunnels in rare cases true too, but what we can do, if they don't have
> reasonable DDoS protection tools all world have (not even blackholing).
> Many DDoS-protection operators charge extra for more tunnel endpoints with
> balancing, and this balancing is not so equal as well (same src+dst ip at
> best).
> And when i did round-robin on my own solution, i noticed except
> this "bandwidth distribution" issue, latency on each ip is unequal,
> so RR create for me "out of order" issues.
> Another problem, most popular services in region (in matters of bandwidth)
> is facebook, whatsapp, youtube. Most of them is big fat flows running over
> few ips. I doubt i can convince them to balance over more.


More information about the NANOG mailing list