Subject: [72attendees] Guestroom Network

From: "LANGE Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:35:26 -0500

Greetings,

We have installed a rate limit on the ports facing the guestroom network to alleviate problems that the guestroom network was experiencing. 

If you observe issues contact the noc.

Thank you,

Andrew
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:10:49 +0100

However, VPN (PPTP) seems to be not working, something being filtered ?

Regards,
Jordi

From: LANGE Andrew <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:35:26 -0500
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [72attendees] Guestroom Network

Greetings,

We have installed a rate limit on the ports facing the guestroom network to
alleviate problems that the guestroom network was experiencing.

Thank you,

Andrew 

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:27:35 +0100

On 27 jul 2008, at 19:35, LANGE Andrew wrote:

> We have installed a rate limit on the ports facing the guestroom  
> network to alleviate problems that the guestroom network was  
> experiencing.
>

You mean rate limiting in the sense of throwing away packets when  
traffic goes beyond a certain bandwidth limit?

This is a very effective way of creating synchronization in the  
congestion window of otherwise unrelated TCPs, thereby reducing  
throughput to significantly less than the rate limit imposed.

The congestion seems to be worse now that IETF'ers have returned to  
their rooms than yesterday at around the same time. (There are  
probably more people here now than yesterday, though.)

We seem to have 100 Mbps to the rooms (I was able to download a few  
podcasts at 11 MB/sec this morning) so it looks like bandwidth isn't  
the bottleneck. Maybe it's the burstiness of the traffic, or maybe the  
NAT can't handle the load?

If the connection between the IETF network and the hotel network is  
with gigabit on the IETF side and 100 Mbit at the hotel side with a  
simple switch in the middle, it's likely that the switch can't  
adequately handle the bursts, using a router interface at 100 Mbps  
will probably be better because routers have more buffers. Some active  
queue management, such as RED, should also help.
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:34:40 +0200

> podcasts at 11 MB/sec this morning) so it looks like bandwidth isn't  the 
> bottleneck. Maybe it's the burstiness of the traffic, or maybe the  NAT 
> can't handle the load?

I am dreaming of the day when NAT will be history and we'll all be happily 
and seamlessly using IPv6.

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D.
E-mail:<[email-masked]> | Tel:+33 (0)6 14 65 35 37 | US Fax:+1 (414) 434 2740
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html & http://www.nsrc.org/codes/country-codes.html

---

From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:28:37 +0100

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> If the connection between the IETF network and the hotel network is with
> gigabit on the IETF side and 100 Mbit at the hotel side with a simple switch
> in the middle, ...

Interesting theory, but the hotel's Juniper is connected directly to
our switch, and that switch port negotiated at a gigabit:

                       DETECTED           CONFIGURED
Slot/ AutoNego  Speed Duplex Hybrid  Speed   Duplex Hybrid  Trap
Port           (Mbps)         Type   (Mbps)         Mode   LinkUpDown
-----+--------+------+------+------+--------+------+------+------
 1/14  Enable   1000   Full    NA      Auto   Auto    NA      -

The rate limit was applied at the router.  I don't know the details of
the rate limit implementation.   The router port is attached to a 1
gig port of another switch, and there is a 2-port (1 gig) link
aggregate between that switch and this one.

According to Cacti, the 95th percentile on the router port in the last
couple of hours has been 19.99Mbps, so I'm not sure we have to worry
too much about the effective throughput being significantly lower than
the rate limit.

  Bill

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:31:54 +0100

> too much about the effective throughput being significantly lower than

Why would you rate limit at 20 Mbps if you have gigabit everywhere???

The performance of the guest room network hovers around the "unusable"  
mark.
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:45:37 +0100

On 28 jul 2008, at 7:31, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> The performance of the guest room network hovers around the  
> "unusable" mark.

--- sequoia.muada.com ping statistics ---
200 packets transmitted, 79 packets received, 60% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 36.186/45.386/59.487/7.524 ms

Obviously whatever setup is in place now, it's not working.

With some 1300 rooms and 20 megabits we have a minimum of 15 kilobits  
per room, which is sufficient for mail and light web browsing but not  
much more than that... And apparently a good number of people is  
trying to do a lot more.
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:51:57 +0100

> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 36.186/45.386/59.487/7.524 ms

The guest room areas are separated into different L3 segments on the
hotel side.  I must be on a different segment than you:

--- sequoia.muada.com ping statistics ---
22 packets transmitted, 22 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 37.148/38.644/43.328/1.308 ms

> With some 1300 rooms and 20 megabits we have a minimum of 15 kilobits per
> room, which is sufficient for mail and light web browsing but not much more
> than that... And apparently a good number of people is trying to do a lot
> more.

The traffic rate now is about 15Mbps, so it seems unlikely that the
20Mbps limit is causing the problems that you are seeing.

We could, of course, have the hotel shift back over to their
couple-Mbps DSL line for the guestrooms, if you think it's a real
problem that the IETF networking team is doing a favor to the hotel
and supplying a faster connection.

  Bill

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:09:52 +0100

> and supplying a faster connection.

I assume things would be even worse using the DSL link.

But I'm still experiencing 60% packet loss, which kills any TCP  
sessions after one or two minutes.

Would it be possible to set up a few wifi base stations in the room  
wings so some traffic can circumvent the room network, giving more  
breathing room to those who remain on that network?

And please, everyone: moderate your network use when in your room,  
especially background applications where the congestion you cause and  
experience isn't visible.
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:31:43 -0700

> breathing room to those who remain on that network?

Room coverage is not part of the the noc services. we're providing then 
with some assitance but we have limited visibility into their systems...

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:37:22 +0100

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 08:09:52AM +0100,
 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]> wrote 

> experience isn't visible.

And read RFC 5290 in the mean time :-)
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:02:44 +0100

> Room coverage is not part of the the noc services. we're providing  
> then with some assitance but we have limited visibility into their  
> systems...

Right, those wifi base stations would have to hook up to the IETF  
network directly for this scheme to work...

Iljitsch

---

From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:16:36 +0300

I am at the Golf Hotel.

Last night I wasn't even getting an address.
This morning early I connected perfectly and was getting multi-Mbps service.

Y(J)S