On Dec 6, 2013 5:16 PM, "Michael Thomas" <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
I realize most of the NANOG operators are not running end user networks
Monthly_GB Count Percent <100GB 3658 90% 100-149 368 10% 150-199 173 4.7% 200-249 97 2.6% 250-299 50 1.4% 300-399 27 0.7% 400-499 9 0.25% 500-599 4 0.1% 600-699 4 0.1% 700-799 3 0.1%
800 1 0.03%
Overall average: 36GB/mo
The user at 836MB per month is on a 3.5Mbps plan paying $49.95/mo. Do
we do anything about it? No - because our current AUP and policies say he can do that.
Thanks for the stats, real life is always refreshing :)
It seems to me -- all things being equal -- that the real question is whether Mr. Hog is impacting your other users. If he's not, then what difference does it make if he consumes the bits, or if the bits over the air are not consumed at all? Is it because of transit costs? That seems unlikely because Mr. Hog's 800gb is dwarfed by your 3658*36gb (almost three orders of magnitude).
If he is impacting other users, doesn't this devolve into a shaping
anymore. Real consumption data: problem which is there regardless
of whether it's him or 4 people at 200GB?
Mike
In a cell network, mr. Hog is most definately negatively impacting users on the same radio sector and backhaul, both of which are dimensioned and operated (like the internet as a whole) on statistical multiplexing. If mr hog is blasting 50mbs on a 100meg link 24/7, nobody will perceive 100mbs since 50mbs is always consumed by mr hog. Statistical multiplexing works great 99% of the time, and i personally would rather not engineer the whole system to fight the 1% extreme users CB