Orcon's new Traffic Shaping.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by ~misfit~, Mar 26, 2005.

  1. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    So Orcon are now only going to impliment traffic shaping for the users who
    are in the top 10% of traffic used. Cool, the rest of us won't suffer
    because of the heavy users. A very fair policy I believe.

    Excerpt from newsletter here follows:

    http://www.orcon.net.nz/help/newsletters/2005-03-23-UBS

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    "However, what we have noticed is that despite our traffic management just
    10% of our customers are doing over 50% of all the traffic on our network.

    Therefore, rather than shape SOME forms of traffic for ALL users to ensure
    quality of service on the network, we have decided that a fairer way to
    manage traffic levels on the network will be to shape the top 10% of users
    on the network by traffic volume. We will ONLY do this when network Quality
    of Service is at risk for other users, and we anticipate that as we bring on
    more customers on lower data plans (to be introduced shortly), traffic
    management for any users will be unnecessary.

    This change in policy should result in speed improvements for 90% of our
    customer base, and a possible reduction in speed for some services for the
    10% of our users using the most traffic. It will also ensure that the
    existing bandwidth, and the new bandwidth which will be bought on shortly
    will be distributed more fairly among users."

    And:

    "As an indication, you would currently be in the top 10% of users if you
    were generating in excess of 20GB of traffic per month."

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I checked my usage, 1.4 GB down in the last period (month), less than 1GB
    up. For the month before less than 1GB each way. They should impliment a
    third pool for low traffic users and give them *excellent* latency and
    ping-times. <g>

    Finally Orcon may be worth sticking with. The only reason I'm still with
    them is procrastination. It looks like it may have paid off. Now we just
    need them to host a NNTP server locally instead of that abysmal foreign
    thing they offer.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ~misfit~

    nova Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > So Orcon are now only going to impliment traffic shaping for the users who
    > are in the top 10% of traffic used. Cool, the rest of us won't suffer
    > because of the heavy users. A very fair policy I believe.
    >
    > Excerpt from newsletter here follows:
    >
    > http://www.orcon.net.nz/help/newsletters/2005-03-23-UBS
    >
    > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >
    > "However, what we have noticed is that despite our traffic management just
    > 10% of our customers are doing over 50% of all the traffic on our network.
    >
    > Therefore, rather than shape SOME forms of traffic for ALL users to ensure
    > quality of service on the network, we have decided that a fairer way to
    > manage traffic levels on the network will be to shape the top 10% of users
    > on the network by traffic volume. We will ONLY do this when network Quality
    > of Service is at risk for other users, and we anticipate that as we bring on
    > more customers on lower data plans (to be introduced shortly), traffic
    > management for any users will be unnecessary.
    >
    > This change in policy should result in speed improvements for 90% of our
    > customer base, and a possible reduction in speed for some services for the
    > 10% of our users using the most traffic. It will also ensure that the
    > existing bandwidth, and the new bandwidth which will be bought on shortly
    > will be distributed more fairly among users."
    >
    > And:
    >
    > "As an indication, you would currently be in the top 10% of users if you
    > were generating in excess of 20GB of traffic per month."
    >
    > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >
    > I checked my usage, 1.4 GB down in the last period (month), less than 1GB
    > up. For the month before less than 1GB each way. They should impliment a
    > third pool for low traffic users and give them *excellent* latency and
    > ping-times. <g>
    >
    > Finally Orcon may be worth sticking with. The only reason I'm still with
    > them is procrastination. It looks like it may have paid off. Now we just
    > need them to host a NNTP server locally instead of that abysmal foreign
    > thing they offer.
    > --
    > ~misfit~
    >
    >


    Seems fair, unless of course you joined Orcon due to them saying
    unlimited traffic and no slow downs :).
    I am wondering if the top 10% will go to ihug and cause the same
    problems there...

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    nova, Mar 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ~misfit~

    -=rjh=- Guest

    nova wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    >> So Orcon are now only going to impliment traffic shaping for the users
    >> who
    >> are in the top 10% of traffic used. Cool, the rest of us won't suffer
    >> because of the heavy users. A very fair policy I believe.
    >>
    >> Excerpt from newsletter here follows:
    >>
    >> http://www.orcon.net.nz/help/newsletters/2005-03-23-UBS
    >>
    >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >>
    >> "However, what we have noticed is that despite our traffic management
    >> just
    >> 10% of our customers are doing over 50% of all the traffic on our
    >> network.
    >>
    >> Therefore, rather than shape SOME forms of traffic for ALL users to
    >> ensure
    >> quality of service on the network, we have decided that a fairer way to
    >> manage traffic levels on the network will be to shape the top 10% of
    >> users
    >> on the network by traffic volume. We will ONLY do this when network
    >> Quality
    >> of Service is at risk for other users, and we anticipate that as we
    >> bring on
    >> more customers on lower data plans (to be introduced shortly), traffic
    >> management for any users will be unnecessary.
    >>
    >> This change in policy should result in speed improvements for 90% of our
    >> customer base, and a possible reduction in speed for some services for
    >> the
    >> 10% of our users using the most traffic. It will also ensure that the
    >> existing bandwidth, and the new bandwidth which will be bought on shortly
    >> will be distributed more fairly among users."
    >>
    >> And:
    >>
    >> "As an indication, you would currently be in the top 10% of users if you
    >> were generating in excess of 20GB of traffic per month."
    >>
    >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >>
    >> I checked my usage, 1.4 GB down in the last period (month), less than 1GB
    >> up. For the month before less than 1GB each way. They should impliment a
    >> third pool for low traffic users and give them *excellent* latency and
    >> ping-times. <g>
    >>
    >> Finally Orcon may be worth sticking with. The only reason I'm still with
    >> them is procrastination. It looks like it may have paid off. Now we just
    >> need them to host a NNTP server locally instead of that abysmal foreign
    >> thing they offer.
    >> --
    >> ~misfit~
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Seems fair, unless of course you joined Orcon due to them saying
    > unlimited traffic and no slow downs :).
    > I am wondering if the top 10% will go to ihug and cause the same
    > problems there...
    >


    I thought it was a reasonable solution, I'm happy with some degradation
    if I go over a limit (and 20GB is reasonable given the current
    situation). I'd almost say it was innovative, but I have no idea what
    standard practice is in this area. Perhaps others can comment.

    I thought the email showed a number of things - look at the time it was
    posted! There has been some discussion here about whether Orcon had been
    traffic shaping or not, this is the first thing Orcon have said anything
    about it in public. So, I guess it shows that their customers do notice
    these things, and it is possible that feedback in this ng is helpful.

    I'm wondering when this new regime will start, as ping times have been
    getting worse recently.

    I'd be interested to know how they do their traffic shaping - how do
    they determine what is non-TCP traffic? Is it just done by port numbers
    or some other way? Would this account for news being slow, as well? And
    email I guess doesn't really matter.

    What would be nice would be some kind of meter either on the Orcon site,
    or on each customer's usage page, to show how much data you need to use
    before you fall into the top 10% - currently this is 20GB, but this
    should lift as new plans come online. (And that will be interesting in
    itself).

    Sounds like Orcon is trying to improve things, but will Telecom stuff
    things up? Could they?

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    -=rjh=-, Mar 26, 2005
    #3
  4. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:
    >
    > I'd be interested to know how they do their traffic shaping - how do
    > they determine what is non-TCP traffic? Is it just done by port
    > numbers
    > or some other way?


    Yes, port numbers I think.

    > Would this account for news being slow, as well?


    Yes again. A friend is experimenting with a newsserver and I'm on Orcon and
    when he had it on the default port (119) I was getting download speeds of
    0.3 - 3.0kb/s. He switched it to port 120 and suddenly I'm getting downloads
    of 18 - 20 kb/s.

    I guess the port that my favourite on-line game uses falls under the list of
    (non-standard) ports that they are traffic-shaping. I just tried playing my
    game and, today, it is completely impossible to play. Getting dropped from
    games, failing to join and, on the rare occasion I got in, the screen would
    freeze for 10 seconds at a time. Opened IE and got 49kb/s download (peak),
    it hovered around 28kb/s when surfing. Pages loading fast and no problems at
    all. Shame I don't want to surf, I just want to join a pre-arranged game
    that my team is currently playing in.

    > And
    > email I guess doesn't really matter.
    >
    > What would be nice would be some kind of meter either on the Orcon
    > site,
    > or on each customer's usage page, to show how much data you need to
    > use
    > before you fall into the top 10% - currently this is 20GB, but this
    > should lift as new plans come online. (And that will be interesting in
    > itself).
    >
    > Sounds like Orcon is trying to improve things, but will Telecom stuff
    > things up? Could they?


    If they can, they will.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 27, 2005
    #4
  5. nova wrote:
    >> "As an indication, you would currently be in the top 10% of users if you
    >> were generating in excess of 20GB of traffic per month."


    > I am wondering if the top 10% will go to ihug and cause the same
    > problems there...


    thats probably the idea.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Mar 27, 2005
    #5
  6. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > nova wrote:
    >>> "As an indication, you would currently be in the top 10% of users
    >>> if you were generating in excess of 20GB of traffic per month."

    >
    >> I am wondering if the top 10% will go to ihug and cause the same
    >> problems there...

    >
    > thats probably the idea.


    One that I support fully. <g>. I mean, better 10% of users change ISPs than
    90% right? Better for Orcon, better for the 90% of their customers, not
    better for Ihug. <shrug>

    I wonder when this is being implimented?
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 28, 2005
    #6
  7. ~misfit~

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > nova wrote:
    >
    >>> "As an indication, you would currently be in the top 10% of users if you
    >>> were generating in excess of 20GB of traffic per month."

    >
    >
    >> I am wondering if the top 10% will go to ihug and cause the same
    >> problems there...

    >
    >
    > thats probably the idea.


    They probably won't - there is a fair amount of inertia involved with
    changing ISPs (even without the churn fee) and as I see it, because
    Orcon's pricing is independent of who you use for phone calls - the way
    it should be, IMHO - their pricing is as good as is currently available.

    I think hardly anybody will change, as things will improve over time,
    and most people will wait and see, provided they have a reasonable
    service in the meantime.

    I'll bet the majority of people who were complaining in this ng about
    Orcon, and saying they were leaving, are still with Orcon. Willing to be
    proved wrong of course.
     
    -=rjh=-, Mar 28, 2005
    #7
  8. -=rjh=- said the following on 28/03/2005 1:35 p.m.:
    > Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >
    >> nova wrote:
    >>

    Snipped
    >
    > I'll bet the majority of people who were complaining in this ng about
    > Orcon, and saying they were leaving, are still with Orcon. Willing to be
    > proved wrong of course.


    Probably wont be proved wrong.
    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
    ======================================================================
    "I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine......
    However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    Collector»NZ, Mar 28, 2005
    #8
  9. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:
    > Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >> nova wrote:
    >>
    >>>> "As an indication, you would currently be in the top 10% of users
    >>>> if you were generating in excess of 20GB of traffic per month."

    >>
    >>
    >>> I am wondering if the top 10% will go to ihug and cause the same
    >>> problems there...

    >>
    >>
    >> thats probably the idea.

    >
    > They probably won't - there is a fair amount of inertia involved with
    > changing ISPs (even without the churn fee) and as I see it, because
    > Orcon's pricing is independent of who you use for phone calls - the
    > way it should be, IMHO - their pricing is as good as is currently
    > available.
    >
    > I think hardly anybody will change, as things will improve over time,
    > and most people will wait and see, provided they have a reasonable
    > service in the meantime.
    >
    > I'll bet the majority of people who were complaining in this ng about
    > Orcon, and saying they were leaving, are still with Orcon. Willing to
    > be proved wrong of course.


    As I said earlier in the thread, the latency improved somewhat and I
    procrastinated so am still with Orcon. The latency has got worse again just
    recently so I'm hoping this shaping-thing fixes it or I might have to
    actually do something instead of just whinge and moan. <g>.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 28, 2005
    #9
  10. ~misfit~

    Young Man Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:d22o02$k32$...
    > So Orcon are now only going to impliment traffic shaping for the users who
    > are in the top 10% of traffic used. Cool, the rest of us won't suffer
    > because of the heavy users. A very fair policy I believe.
    >
    > Excerpt from newsletter here follows:
    >
    > http://www.orcon.net.nz/help/newsletters/2005-03-23-UBS
    >
    > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >
    > "However, what we have noticed is that despite our traffic management just
    > 10% of our customers are doing over 50% of all the traffic on our network.
    >
    > Therefore, rather than shape SOME forms of traffic for ALL users to ensure
    > quality of service on the network, we have decided that a fairer way to
    > manage traffic levels on the network will be to shape the top 10% of users
    > on the network by traffic volume. We will ONLY do this when network
    > Quality
    > of Service is at risk for other users, and we anticipate that as we bring
    > on
    > more customers on lower data plans (to be introduced shortly), traffic
    > management for any users will be unnecessary.
    >
    > This change in policy should result in speed improvements for 90% of our
    > customer base, and a possible reduction in speed for some services for the
    > 10% of our users using the most traffic. It will also ensure that the
    > existing bandwidth, and the new bandwidth which will be bought on shortly
    > will be distributed more fairly among users."
    >
    > And:
    >
    > "As an indication, you would currently be in the top 10% of users if you
    > were generating in excess of 20GB of traffic per month."
    >
    > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >
    > I checked my usage, 1.4 GB down in the last period (month), less than 1GB
    > up. For the month before less than 1GB each way. They should impliment a
    > third pool for low traffic users and give them *excellent* latency and
    > ping-times. <g>
    >
    > Finally Orcon may be worth sticking with. The only reason I'm still with
    > them is procrastination. It looks like it may have paid off. Now we just
    > need them to host a NNTP server locally instead of that abysmal foreign
    > thing they offer.


    Screw Orcon, the thieving @#$##!. I left them and am now back with
    World-Net. I get MAXIMUM dl rates and EXCELLENT pings.
     
    Young Man, Mar 30, 2005
    #10
  11. ~misfit~

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Young Man wrote:
    >
    > Screw Orcon, the thieving @#$##!. I left them and am now back with
    > World-Net. I get MAXIMUM dl rates and EXCELLENT pings.
    >
    >

    Hmmm...angry young man

    :)
     
    -=rjh=-, Mar 30, 2005
    #11
  12. ~misfit~

    Young Man Guest

    "-=rjh=-" <> wrote in message
    news:d2d04e$vhl$...
    > Hmmm...angry young man
    >
    > :)


    Indeed. Orcon pissed me off good. Oh so good. But world-net has been
    excellent. Quality of service is 100 fold better than Orcon.
     
    Young Man, Mar 30, 2005
    #12
  13. ~misfit~

    AD. Guest

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:45:46 +1200, -=rjh=- wrote:

    > I'd be interested to know how they do their traffic shaping - how do they
    > determine what is non-TCP traffic? Is it just done by port numbers or some
    > other way?


    Ummm non-TCP traffic would be anything that isn't IP protocol number 6. ie
    ICMP is protocol 1, and UDP is 17 etc.

    Or did you mean non-standard TCP ports? In which case it sounds like
    whatever they felt like.

    My definition would be that anything mentioned in an RFC is a standard
    port ;)

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Mar 30, 2005
    #13
  14. AD. wrote:
    >>I'd be interested to know how they do their traffic shaping - how do they
    >>determine what is non-TCP traffic? Is it just done by port numbers or some
    >>other way?


    > Ummm non-TCP traffic would be anything that isn't IP protocol number 6. ie
    > ICMP is protocol 1, and UDP is 17 etc.
    > Or did you mean non-standard TCP ports? In which case it sounds like
    > whatever they felt like.
    > My definition would be that anything mentioned in an RFC is a standard
    > port ;)


    so... 1-~65000 then
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Mar 30, 2005
    #14
  15. ~misfit~

    no Guest

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:57:57 +1200, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >-=rjh=- wrote:
    >> Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >>> nova wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> "As an indication, you would currently be in the top 10% of users
    >>>>> if you were generating in excess of 20GB of traffic per month."
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> I am wondering if the top 10% will go to ihug and cause the same
    >>>> problems there...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> thats probably the idea.

    >>
    >> They probably won't - there is a fair amount of inertia involved with
    >> changing ISPs (even without the churn fee) and as I see it, because
    >> Orcon's pricing is independent of who you use for phone calls - the
    >> way it should be, IMHO - their pricing is as good as is currently
    >> available.
    >>
    >> I think hardly anybody will change, as things will improve over time,
    >> and most people will wait and see, provided they have a reasonable
    >> service in the meantime.
    >>
    >> I'll bet the majority of people who were complaining in this ng about
    >> Orcon, and saying they were leaving, are still with Orcon. Willing to
    >> be proved wrong of course.

    >
    >As I said earlier in the thread, the latency improved somewhat and I
    >procrastinated so am still with Orcon. The latency has got worse again just
    >recently so I'm hoping this shaping-thing fixes it or I might have to
    >actually do something instead of just whinge and moan. <g>.


    Might have to end up buying your ports, you get a package deal,
    normal web ports and a set of gaming ports and a phone and tv port..

    I have had my connections going spack, but I don't think it's orcon as
    I'm don't do 10G of trafic a months, I think it's the rural
    connection, that when it rains it goes slower.
     
    no, Sep 16, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kenny D
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    655
    Remien, Carsten
    Dec 5, 2003
  2. Hypno999

    traffic-shaping limit ftp traffic

    Hypno999, Oct 7, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,648
  3. Skybuck Flying
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    4,852
    Skybuck Flying
    Jan 19, 2006
  4. Nova
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    963
    ~misfit~
    Mar 20, 2006
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    687
    Ios2012
    Oct 4, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page