[117329] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Traffic Shaping on ISPs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jake Vargas)
Thu Sep 10 05:51:17 2009
From: Jake Vargas <jvargas@crypticstudios.com>
To: 'Lasse Schmidt' <mcalpha@mcalpha.net>, "'nanog@nanog.org'"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:49:04 -0700
In-Reply-To: <001201ca31f3$d092dc60$71b89520$@net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> While I cannot confirm officially, there is a lot of rumors, that several
> larger UK ISP's are throttling traffic at that time period.
> I am not sure who to contact, but the individual ISP's to solve this, fro=
m
> your point, maybe another NANOG'er knows.
Hi Lasse,=20
Thanks for the reply. We wrote an app to reveal troubles.
Just to satisfy any curiosity and get some facts out, I will provide a real=
world example (1 of many) from a direct test of one of our BT sourced cust=
omers (this is from a 08-29 test at ~22:04 hours GMT):
Date IP RTT Port ActualRecv NicSent NicRecv
090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 80 199 13 214
090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 80 199 13 214
090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 443 200 12 215
090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 443 199 12 214
090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7255 2 2 5
090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7255 3 1 4
090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7003 3 2 5
090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7003 4 1 5
090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7202 27 3 32
090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7202 24 2 29
090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7499 27 3 32
090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7499 25 2 31
090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 80 195 13 206
Idle NIC bandwidth Send: 0 KB/sec Recv: 0 KB/sec
To remove any doubt we also measured idle bandwidth utilization on the NIC =
when the test wasn't run to remove any other culprit such as torrent downlo=
ad, A/V streaming and etc in the background. In this case, 0/0 on idle use.=
All results are in KBytes
I withheld the actual IP address of this test and replaced it from the sour=
ce prefix. We have quite a few iterations of similar results from other sou=
rce addresses from this prefix alone. All appear to exhibit the same issue.=
=20
I've already written British Telecom and they never replied.
