8 ms·

The ISPs aren't dropping the packets, Level3 is. From the article linked to in the blog: "A port that is on average utilised at 90 percent will be saturated, d

The ISPs aren't dropping the packets, Level3 is. From the article linked to in the blog: "A port that is on average utilised at 90 percent will be saturated, dropping packets, for several hours a day. We have congested ports saturated to those levels with 12 of our 51 peers." "We"in the quote is Level3. They're dropping the packets. Why do the ISPs have to pay for Level3's dropping of packets? Shouldn't the ISPs replace Level3 if they keep dropping packets? Also, dropped packets isn't the end of the world. In TCP at least, the packets just get resent. The language that gets used in all of these talks ("deliberately harming", "American business", "It's insulting") just makes me want to tune out entirely. I don't have time for chicken littles.

jfoutz 12y ago
Dropping packets makes load problems worse, because failing users start to send even more traffic.
- MAGZine 12y ago
  The opposite, dropped packets are bad because it slows the Internet down. When you need to retransmit a packet because one is dropped, the network assumes congestion and radically throttles speed to prevent the network blowing up.
- Nacraile 12y ago
  This is not true. TCP will retransmit, yes, but TCP congestion control will also reduce the transmit rate in response to lost packets. Overall, proper TCP implementations will back off to approximately their fair share of a contended bottleneck. The application layer sees reduced throughput, not message loss. New TCP connections start with very conservative transmit rates, so an application which is overly aggressive in abandoning slow connections and retrying will not add substantially to congestion. UDP doesn't necessarily have these properties, but anyone who implements a high-bandwidth UDP protocol which isn't TCP congestion control friendly deserves public shaming.
  - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
    Except between buffer bloat[1] and users spamming the reload button, TCP's congestion control is not going to solve the problem. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bufferbloat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bufferbloat
  - deeviant 12y ago
    That is true. TCP congestion control throttles back the speed in the presence of dropped packets. Thus, dropped packets adversely affect throughput at a magnitude greater than the simple overhead of packet retransmission.
kbar13 12y ago
AFAICT, the reason why packets are getting dropped is because the ISP's equipment doesn't have the capacity to handle the traffic. i.e. internet is a series of pipes example. Level3 has a big fat pipe with 10Gbit/s of traffic going through to the peering point, where $ISP has a pipe that goes to their network rated at 1Gbit/s. Since the traffic can't fit into $ISP's pipe, the extra packets get dropped.
signet 12y ago
Level3 is dropping packets because $BIG_CABLE_ISP doesn't want to upgrade their cross-connects at the exchange points. Level3 sounds happy to increase this capacity, they are saying that the cable ISPs aren't negotiating with them to provide more bandwidth at these choke points. It's not Level3's job to pay for $BIG_CABLE_ISP's infrastructure, when it's their own customers who are requesting the traffic over these links.
- diminoten 12y ago
  But isn't that the point? Level3 is capable of handling more traffic but the ISPs are not. So what? It sounds like Level3 wants to enter into bigger-money contracts with the ISPs but the ISPs don't want to, so Level3 is appealing to the masses to help them rake in extra cash (to justify the expenses they've incurred upgrading their equipment). Why does Level3 get the benefit of being David here? IT just seems like they're trying to leverage the net neutrality debate to get themselves more favorable peering contracts with ISPs, which in a twist of irony, is exactly the kind of thing which goes against net neutrality in the first place (why are Level3's packets so special anyway?).
  - CocaKoala 12y ago
    What? Level3 isn't appealing to the masses to help them rake in extra cash. They don't need to. Do you think Level3 just throws data at Comcast nonstop, and Comcast is helpless to stop it? Customers of Comcast ask for data that Level3 is trying to provide; Comcast can't handle the bandwidth. But the only reason the data is flowing is because the customers of Comcast want it; it's not like Level3 is forcing Comcast to accept it. Why is Level3 obligated to pay for upgrades to Comcast's infrastructure to satisfy demands placed on Comcast by Comcast's customers?
    - diminoten 12y ago
      You've got to ask yourself why Level3 is writing blog posts about this in the first place. It'd be like a bread making company calling out the sandwich shop it sells bread to for not having enough stores. BUT WE'VE MADE ALL THIS BREAD WHY WON'T YOU BUY MORE?! JUST OPEN UP 100 NEW STORES I KNOW YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT! Level3 invested money in their infrastructure, but Comcast, et. al. have not (yet). Level3 is losing money by having all this additional capacity, are they not? So clearly it's in their best interest to light a fire under the ISP's collective ass to try to get them to upgrade quickly. Oh hey look, a political issue has appeared that does precisely that. Why wouldn't Level3 latch onto that movement and attempt to use it for financial gain in the form of more favorable peering agreements?
dtech 12y ago
I'm not very familiar with networks at this level, but it seems logical: Level3 wants to push more traffic through the ISP's pipe than the ISP's pipe can handle (because the ISP's customers want those packets). The only solution for Level3 is dropping or queueing packets, and I'm assuming queueing is not feasible.
- rblatz 12y ago
  The ISP is pulling the packets from Level 3, Level 3 is not pushing it. Also Level 3 claims they can get the packets all the way to the cross connect between their network and the ISP's and they have extra capacity at the cross connect, but the ISP's refuse to upgrade their side of the cross connect (IE the part that turns them from a network provider to an Internet provider.)
TheCraiggers 12y ago
>Also, dropped packets isn't the end of the world. In TCP at least, the packets just get resent. Depends on what the application is, and how many are being dropped. True, standard HTTP can in theory even still work with 99% drop rate (if you're willing to wait long enough) but Netflix, multiplayer games, and any other application you can think of that demands either high-bandwidth or low-latency aren't going to work. As far as those applications are concerned, it is the end of the world.
- diminoten 12y ago
  Streaming services utilize a buffer, so no, it isn't the end of the world if packets are dropped. The buffer gets used while the packets get retransmitted. As for multiplayer games, most use UDP, and the ones that use TCP tend to use some tricks that allow for a certain amount of latency. This is why the Internet isn't currently down, even though this is currently a problem. No widely used Internet-based technology can't handle dropped packets. Zero. None. Besides, Netflix is a unique case, as it constitutes 30% or so of all Internet traffic. You can't list Netflix as one of many, because it stands alone.
  - CocaKoala 12y ago
    Twitch.tv, justin.tv, youtube. That's off the top of my head and I'm confident there are more than I'm missing. There are plenty of video streaming services; not all of them are as large as netflix, but to say "Netflix is a unique case" is pretty weird. And dropping packets isn't the end of the world, but it's certainly not good. Should we just ignore a problem just because the world isn't ending?
    - diminoten 12y ago
      Netflix is a unique case. No one even comes close to network usage. Not even close. It's a very unique case, given its volume. And I don't know who here said to ignore this problem, but they're wrong too. It's just that this isn't the "It’s insulting." problem the submission tries to paint it as. His solution is to "throw the bums out". Are you kidding me? Why are we wasting our time reading and talking about this tripe?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
crashandburn4 12y ago
I don't really think your comment makes sense, if you and I are juggling balls and suddenly you throw up your hands and shout "I can't take any more balls" do you think I should pick up more balls and throw them at your face or should I leave them on the ground (which in this analogy would be level 3 dropping the packets)
- diminoten 12y ago
  What do you mean when you say, "Throwing their hands up"? Are you saying the ISPs are refusing to route any traffic after a certain threshold? Does Level3 get cut off entirely if it exceeds its bandwidth limit?
  - Jtsummers 12y ago
    They effectively are refusing to route after a certain threshold. Their connections are saturated and they aren't wanting to play ball the way other peers have (at least per Level 3's side of the story). So once their X Gigabit link is saturated, quality goes down. They don't want to use the same arrangement that Level 3 has made with others (with respect to cost distribution) to upgrade the connection so the situation remains.
gkoz 12y ago
You should try browsing the Web with a 10% packet loss sometime.
vidarh 12y ago
> Shouldn't the ISPs replace Level3 if they keep dropping packets? How would that help when the reason Level3 is dropping packets is because the ISPs don't have enough capacity to receive them? Level3 can't magically make a 10Gbps port take 20Gbps of traffic, nor could any hypothetical replacement the ISPs might go to (there aren't many realistic alternatives).

jfoutz 12y ago

Dropping packets makes load problems worse, because failing users start to send even more traffic.

MAGZine 12y ago
The opposite, dropped packets are bad because it slows the Internet down. When you need to retransmit a packet because one is dropped, the network assumes congestion and radically throttles speed to prevent the network blowing up.
Nacraile 12y ago
This is not true. TCP will retransmit, yes, but TCP congestion control will also reduce the transmit rate in response to lost packets. Overall, proper TCP implementations will back off to approximately their fair share of a contended bottleneck. The application layer sees reduced throughput, not message loss. New TCP connections start with very conservative transmit rates, so an application which is overly aggressive in abandoning slow connections and retrying will not add substantially to congestion. UDP doesn't necessarily have these properties, but anyone who implements a high-bandwidth UDP protocol which isn't TCP congestion control friendly deserves public shaming.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  Except between buffer bloat[1] and users spamming the reload button, TCP's congestion control is not going to solve the problem. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bufferbloat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bufferbloat
- deeviant 12y ago
  That is true. TCP congestion control throttles back the speed in the presence of dropped packets. Thus, dropped packets adversely affect throughput at a magnitude greater than the simple overhead of packet retransmission.

kbar13 12y ago

AFAICT, the reason why packets are getting dropped is because the ISP's equipment doesn't have the capacity to handle the traffic. i.e. internet is a series of pipes example. Level3 has a big fat pipe with 10Gbit/s of traffic going through to the peering point, where $ISP has a pipe that goes to their network rated at 1Gbit/s. Since the traffic can't fit into $ISP's pipe, the extra packets get dropped.

signet 12y ago

Level3 is dropping packets because $BIG_CABLE_ISP doesn't want to upgrade their cross-connects at the exchange points. Level3 sounds happy to increase this capacity, they are saying that the cable ISPs aren't negotiating with them to provide more bandwidth at these choke points. It's not Level3's job to pay for $BIG_CABLE_ISP's infrastructure, when it's their own customers who are requesting the traffic over these links.

diminoten 12y ago
But isn't that the point? Level3 is capable of handling more traffic but the ISPs are not. So what? It sounds like Level3 wants to enter into bigger-money contracts with the ISPs but the ISPs don't want to, so Level3 is appealing to the masses to help them rake in extra cash (to justify the expenses they've incurred upgrading their equipment). Why does Level3 get the benefit of being David here? IT just seems like they're trying to leverage the net neutrality debate to get themselves more favorable peering contracts with ISPs, which in a twist of irony, is exactly the kind of thing which goes against net neutrality in the first place (why are Level3's packets so special anyway?).
- CocaKoala 12y ago
  What? Level3 isn't appealing to the masses to help them rake in extra cash. They don't need to. Do you think Level3 just throws data at Comcast nonstop, and Comcast is helpless to stop it? Customers of Comcast ask for data that Level3 is trying to provide; Comcast can't handle the bandwidth. But the only reason the data is flowing is because the customers of Comcast want it; it's not like Level3 is forcing Comcast to accept it. Why is Level3 obligated to pay for upgrades to Comcast's infrastructure to satisfy demands placed on Comcast by Comcast's customers?
  - diminoten 12y ago
    You've got to ask yourself why Level3 is writing blog posts about this in the first place. It'd be like a bread making company calling out the sandwich shop it sells bread to for not having enough stores. BUT WE'VE MADE ALL THIS BREAD WHY WON'T YOU BUY MORE?! JUST OPEN UP 100 NEW STORES I KNOW YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT! Level3 invested money in their infrastructure, but Comcast, et. al. have not (yet). Level3 is losing money by having all this additional capacity, are they not? So clearly it's in their best interest to light a fire under the ISP's collective ass to try to get them to upgrade quickly. Oh hey look, a political issue has appeared that does precisely that. Why wouldn't Level3 latch onto that movement and attempt to use it for financial gain in the form of more favorable peering agreements?

dtech 12y ago

I'm not very familiar with networks at this level, but it seems logical: Level3 wants to push more traffic through the ISP's pipe than the ISP's pipe can handle (because the ISP's customers want those packets). The only solution for Level3 is dropping or queueing packets, and I'm assuming queueing is not feasible.

rblatz 12y ago
The ISP is pulling the packets from Level 3, Level 3 is not pushing it. Also Level 3 claims they can get the packets all the way to the cross connect between their network and the ISP's and they have extra capacity at the cross connect, but the ISP's refuse to upgrade their side of the cross connect (IE the part that turns them from a network provider to an Internet provider.)

TheCraiggers 12y ago

>Also, dropped packets isn't the end of the world. In TCP at least, the packets just get resent. Depends on what the application is, and how many are being dropped. True, standard HTTP can in theory even still work with 99% drop rate (if you're willing to wait long enough) but Netflix, multiplayer games, and any other application you can think of that demands either high-bandwidth or low-latency aren't going to work. As far as those applications are concerned, it is the end of the world.

diminoten 12y ago
Streaming services utilize a buffer, so no, it isn't the end of the world if packets are dropped. The buffer gets used while the packets get retransmitted. As for multiplayer games, most use UDP, and the ones that use TCP tend to use some tricks that allow for a certain amount of latency. This is why the Internet isn't currently down, even though this is currently a problem. No widely used Internet-based technology can't handle dropped packets. Zero. None. Besides, Netflix is a unique case, as it constitutes 30% or so of all Internet traffic. You can't list Netflix as one of many, because it stands alone.
- CocaKoala 12y ago
  Twitch.tv, justin.tv, youtube. That's off the top of my head and I'm confident there are more than I'm missing. There are plenty of video streaming services; not all of them are as large as netflix, but to say "Netflix is a unique case" is pretty weird. And dropping packets isn't the end of the world, but it's certainly not good. Should we just ignore a problem just because the world isn't ending?
  - diminoten 12y ago
    Netflix is a unique case. No one even comes close to network usage. Not even close. It's a very unique case, given its volume. And I don't know who here said to ignore this problem, but they're wrong too. It's just that this isn't the "It’s insulting." problem the submission tries to paint it as. His solution is to "throw the bums out". Are you kidding me? Why are we wasting our time reading and talking about this tripe?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

crashandburn4 12y ago

I don't really think your comment makes sense, if you and I are juggling balls and suddenly you throw up your hands and shout "I can't take any more balls" do you think I should pick up more balls and throw them at your face or should I leave them on the ground (which in this analogy would be level 3 dropping the packets)

diminoten 12y ago
What do you mean when you say, "Throwing their hands up"? Are you saying the ISPs are refusing to route any traffic after a certain threshold? Does Level3 get cut off entirely if it exceeds its bandwidth limit?
- Jtsummers 12y ago
  They effectively are refusing to route after a certain threshold. Their connections are saturated and they aren't wanting to play ball the way other peers have (at least per Level 3's side of the story). So once their X Gigabit link is saturated, quality goes down. They don't want to use the same arrangement that Level 3 has made with others (with respect to cost distribution) to upgrade the connection so the situation remains.

gkoz 12y ago

You should try browsing the Web with a 10% packet loss sometime.

vidarh 12y ago

> Shouldn't the ISPs replace Level3 if they keep dropping packets? How would that help when the reason Level3 is dropping packets is because the ISPs don't have enough capacity to receive them? Level3 can't magically make a 10Gbps port take 20Gbps of traffic, nor could any hypothetical replacement the ISPs might go to (there aren't many realistic alternatives).