[102103] in North American Network Operators' Group
Cox clamping VPN traffic?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tomas L. Byrnes)
Fri Jan 25 12:28:39 2008
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:17:40 -0800
From: "Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb@byrneit.net>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C85F76.30B9C223
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I've got a local peer with Cox for VPN users to co-lo. A VPN connection
that otherwise shows no issues just had their file transfer rate during
a large file transfer over the VPN go from 10Mbps to 43kbps, and stay
there. This isn't transit, it's local peering.
=20
The local Cox guys don't see anything wrong.
=20
Other users can access the same server over their VPN with no problems,
and the end user has no issues transferring large files from other
sites.
=20
Looks to me like the P2P bandwidth clamping "solution" gone bad.
=20
Anyone have any insights into what Cox are up to?
=20
P.S. The Cox customer using the VPN has a Cox Business Services link,
not a home cable modem.
=20
=20
=20
=20
------_=_NextPart_001_01C85F76.30B9C223
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I've =
got a local=20
peer with Cox for VPN users to co-lo. A VPN connection that otherwise =
shows no=20
issues just had their file transfer rate during a large file transfer =
over the=20
VPN go from 10Mbps to 43kbps, and stay there. This isn't transit, it's =
local=20
peering.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The =
local Cox guys=20
don't see anything wrong.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Other =
users can=20
access the same server over their VPN with no problems, and the end user =
has no=20
issues transferring large files from other sites.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Looks =
to me like the=20
P2P bandwidth clamping "solution" gone bad.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Anyone =
have any=20
insights into what Cox are up to?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>P.S. =
The Cox=20
customer using the VPN has a Cox Business Services link, not a home =
cable=20
modem.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163261317-25012008><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C85F76.30B9C223--
