[178716] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Mar 2 19:34:44 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <54F4F500.8090303@pari.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 16:32:04 -0800
To: Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Mar 2, 2015, at 15:40 , Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
>=20
> On 03/02/2015 03:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Mar 2, 2015, at 08:28 , Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> ...it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten =
so I can shut the machine down and go to bed.=20
>> How much of your downstream bandwidth are you willing to give up in =
order to get that?
>>=20
>> Let=E2=80=99s say your current service is 10Mbps/512Kbps. Would you =
be willing to switch to 3Mbps/7Mbps in order to achieve what you want?
>>=20
>> What about 5.25Mbps/5.25Mbps? (same total bandwidth, but split =
symmetrically)?
>=20
> Any of those would be nice. Nicer would be something adaptive, but =
that's a pipe dream, I know. I'm aware of the technological limitations =
of ADSL, especially the crosstalk and power limitations, how the =
spectrum is divided, etc.
>=20
> The difference between 10/.5 and 5.25/5.25 on the download would be =
minimal (half as fast); on the upload, not so minimal (ten times =
faster). But even a 'less asymmetrical' connection would be better than =
a 20:1 ratio. 4:1 (with 10Mb/s aggregate) would be better than 20:1.
If you would see that as a win, I can personally guarantee you that you =
are in the minority among consumers.
I, even as an advanced user know that overall, my usage pattern would =
suffer greatly if my 30/7 were converted to 18.5/18.5. (I=E2=80=99m on =
CMTS instead of ADSL, as all ADSL will do in my neighborhood is 1536/384 =
(on a good day)).
Sure, my uploads would be faster, but that=E2=80=99s less than 1% of =
what I do and I=E2=80=99m almost never sitting there waiting for my =
upload to complete. When I upload something large, I pretty much do it =
as a fire-and-forget. I get notified if it fails and I use =
software/protocols for large files that are capable of resuming where =
they left off or recovering from failure with relatively minimal =
retransmission of previously transferred data.
As such, while I=E2=80=99d much rather have 30Mbps of upstream data than =
7, if I were given the choice between 30/30 vs. 53/7, I=E2=80=99s =
probably still choose 53/7.
I agree that adaptive is a nice pipedream, but in the realm of reality, =
fixed is what is currently implemented and due to where the incentives =
currently reside, likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future.
Owen
