From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 8 22:52:37 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A73516A418 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 22:52:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tundra@tundraware.com) Received: from ozzie.tundraware.com (ozzie.tundraware.com [66.92.130.199]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502BA13C45B for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 22:52:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tundra@tundraware.com) MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1189896751.48617@mxzsKR+EHlkCvphjlfFsPw Received: from [192.168.0.2] (viper.tundraware.com [192.168.0.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by ozzie.tundraware.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l88MqUCi043543 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Sep 2007 17:52:30 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from tundra@tundraware.com) Message-ID: <46E327AA.7040102@tundraware.com> Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 17:52:26 -0500 From: Tim Daneliuk Organization: TundraWare Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Mittelstaedt References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-tundraware.com-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-tundraware.com-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-tundraware.com-MailScanner-From: tundra@tundraware.com X-Spam-Status: No Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ADSL Bandwidth Monitoring X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: tundra@tundraware.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 22:52:37 -0000 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>> Tim Daneliuk wrote: >> I don't understand this. If the actual DSL circuit is point-to-point - >> i.e., not shared between the premise and the DSLAM in the CO, just >> exactly *where* is the contention occuring? > > Inside the ISP's router. > > However even cheap ISP routers you can buy off Ebay for a couple grand > have enough bandwidth to route between multiple 100BaseT connections. For > example the 7206 has 2 800Mbt backplanes. That would mean you could > run 500 1.5Mbt DSL customers at full bore to a server on your local > network before contention would set in. And an ISP with that many > customers can afford a more powerful router than a couple K used 7206. > > The upshot is his ISP doesen't know how to troubleshoot DSL. > > Ted That's more-or-less what I figured. When I switched from XO to Speakeasy, I got nearly twice the speed - i.e., What the circuit was actually supposed to do in the first place - and both use the same CO and ISP (Covad). The only other difference was that XO had me using a Speedstream and Speakeasy a Brightport bridge. No matter what XO did, they could never hold up the circuit at full speed, but Speakeasy has no problem doing this. In exchanging bridges, there is some difference, but there's no question that the provider (and their relationship with the DISP in the CO) does make a difference. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/