Main Nav

Greetings!  I hope you are all doing well at the start of your fall semester.  We’ve been using a NetEqualizer NE2000 model for the past 7 years and it’s about time for an upgrade.  I see that they offer a caching option (uses Squid) with the new models and I’m wondering if anyone has tried that and would share an opinion.  The write-up on the website suggests that YouTube videos account for up to 15 percent of Internet traffic.  I wonder what percentage of our bandwidth is used for YouTube.  We don’t have sufficient monitoring to determine that or to provide solid reporting to supervisors trying to determine whether a particular staff member is working or playing on the web all day.  Our old NetEqualizer has ntop reporting but, as with the box, it’s dated.  I wonder if the newer NetEqualizers offer better monitoring or if we should be looking at other options.  Any/all advice appreciated, including suggestions to look at other products – but no vendor contact please.  I’m looking for peer guidance.

 

Thanks!

Charlie

 

 

Charlie Prothero

Chief Information Officer

 

Keystone College

Information Technology Building

One College Green

P.O. Box 50 • La Plume, PA 18440-0200

 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Comments

We use NetEQ and they do a very good job with great support.  Unfortunately the caching option did not work for us.  Every now and then it would cache a partial or corrupt video and then you would have to purge the cache to fix the problem as everyone who hit that video in the cache would get a partial video.  All this being said we haven’t tried it since we had issues with it a couple years ago; so maybe an update resolved this problem.  Support thought that the caching could not keep up with our 300Mb pipe.

 

-Brian

 

Message from r_harris@culinary.edu

I strongly recommend you look into the Exinda line of products, we've been using them (after leaving packetshaper) and could not be happier.
 
Robert Harris
Manager of Network
and Audio/Video
Culinary Institute of America
1946 Campus Drive
Hyde Park, NY
845-451-1681
Food is Life
Create and Savor Yours.™


>>> Charlie Prothero <Charlie.Prothero@KEYSTONE.EDU> 8/28/2013 1:52 PM >>>

Greetings!  I hope you are all doing well at the start of your fall semester.  We’ve been using a NetEqualizer NE2000 model for the past 7 years and it’s about time for an upgrade.  I see that they offer a caching option (uses Squid) with the new models and I’m wondering if anyone has tried that and would share an opinion.  The write-up on the website suggests that YouTube videos account for up to 15 percent of Internet traffic.  I wonder what percentage of our bandwidth is used for YouTube.  We don’t have sufficient monitoring to determine that or to provide solid reporting to supervisors trying to determine whether a particular staff member is working or playing on the web all day.  Our old NetEqualizer has ntop reporting but, as with the box, it’s dated.  I wonder if the newer NetEqualizers offer better monitoring or if we should be looking at other options.  Any/all advice appreciated, including suggestions to look at other products – but no vendor contact please.  I’m looking for peer guidance.

 

Thanks!

Charlie

 

 

Charlie Prothero

Chief Information Officer

 

Keystone College

Information Technology Building

One College Green

P.O. Box 50 • La Plume, PA 18440-0200

 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

+1 for Exinda. We started using an Exinda appliance several years ago and have had an extremely good experience. They have a caching option, but I have not used it.

Thanks,

Chris Mielke

NETWORK ENGINEER 3

COMPUTER AND NETWORK SERVICES



From: Robert Harris <r_harris@CULINARY.EDU>
Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Network Management Constituent Group Listserv <NETMAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:00 PM
To: "NETMAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU" <NETMAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [NETMAN] NetEqualizer/Bandwidth Management

I strongly recommend you look into the Exinda line of products, we've been using them (after leaving packetshaper) and could not be happier.
 
Robert Harris
Manager of Network
and Audio/Video
Culinary Institute of America
1946 Campus Drive
Hyde Park, NY
845-451-1681
Food is Life
Create and Savor Yours.™


>>> Charlie Prothero <Charlie.Prothero@KEYSTONE.EDU> 8/28/2013 1:52 PM >>>

Greetings!  I hope you are all doing well at the start of your fall semester.  We’ve been using a NetEqualizer NE2000 model for the past 7 years and it’s about time for an upgrade.  I see that they offer a caching option (uses Squid) with the new models and I’m wondering if anyone has tried that and would share an opinion.  The write-up on the website suggests that YouTube videos account for up to 15 percent of Internet traffic.  I wonder what percentage of our bandwidth is used for YouTube.  We don’t have sufficient monitoring to determine that or to provide solid reporting to supervisors trying to determine whether a particular staff member is working or playing on the web all day.  Our old NetEqualizer has ntop reporting but, as with the box, it’s dated.  I wonder if the newer NetEqualizers offer better monitoring or if we should be looking at other options.  Any/all advice appreciated, including suggestions to look at other products – but no vendor contact please.  I’m looking for peer guidance.

 

Thanks!

Charlie

 

 

Charlie Prothero

Chief Information Officer

 

Keystone College

Information Technology Building

One College Green

P.O. Box 50 • La Plume, PA 18440-0200

 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

We also use NetEQ.  We are not using caching.  I think it works well over-all.   I second the complaint about  monitoring.  It is lame and I have told them so.  I also think that Skype and other streaming video services suffer under very congested situations more so than it did under Packet Shaper when we used that.  Having said that, the issue of supporting video in congested networks is becoming a dilemma no matter what one uses.  We have to prioritize traffic specifically for live video streams when a stream is considered very important.   It is hard to balance this issue, but I wish they would give a little more auto priority to live video streaming protocols like Skype which don’t have the luxury of buffering.  Buffered video streams like Netflix, Hulu, etc, seem to work fine for the most part.

Tim Tyler

Network Engineer

Beloit College

 

 

Technically speaking, while Neteq’s philosophy is egalitarian, they are not technically 100% egalitarian.  They do some inspection (not to the level of Packetshaper and some others), but they do weight some prioritization automatically.  Http traffic is not treated the same as certain other protocols.  They have  admitted that Skype was considered frivolous to them of which I told them that our faculty consider it critical.  They could inspect for some particular applications if they wanted and have admitted to me that they can identify some Skype.  I agree that they will never give me layer 7 reports on bandwidth, but they should be able to give me on the front page a report of average utilization over a specified time.  I have kept my unlicensed Packetshaper in place in monitor mode just so I can continue to monitor how traffic is behaving.  Neteq could and should do a better job of this.  But I totally agree that the philosophy is crude packet flow containment allowing one to buy more bandwidth instead.  This is not a bad philosophy because at some point, you can only squeeze so much through before something has to suffer.  My fear of the growing demand for HD video scares me in that I doubt we will be able to keep up with video demands in the future.  My frustration with Packetshaper is that you can’t keep up with every little layer 7 application.  So unidentified applications might suffer unless you had a significant buffer for them in which case the philosophy of layer 7 management was getting minimized.    I tend to think that people who are happier usually have more bandwidth per capita.

 

 Tim

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Network Management Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:NETMAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Bohrer
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 5:48 PM
To: NETMAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [NETMAN] NetEqualizer/Bandwidth Management

 

At the risk of sounding big-brotherish, the key monitoring shortfall we’ve had with our NetEqualizer and Linux NAT box combination is difficulty providing usage reports on employees suspected of spending excessive work time on recreational web surfing.  This need arises very infrequently, but it is something HR and supervisors have asked for.  Our NetEqualizer is very outdated – version 4.7 – can anyone comment on whether this has been improved or what you’ve done to address it on your campus?

 

I have not heard any success stories on caching, so perhaps this is something that we should pass on for now.  We’re also looking into the Exinda recommendation a couple of people made.  Thanks for your feedback, folks!

 

Charlie

 

Greetings,

I have two quick questions for the group:

First, anyone successfully using QoS policies to manage bandwidth in lieu of an appliance such as a PacketShaper or NetEqualizer?

Second, anyone doing nothing to manage bandwidth?

Thanks,
David
********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

On Wed Mar 05 2014 09:49:30 CST, David Blahut wrote: > Second, anyone doing nothing to manage bandwidth? > We’re doing nothing. Bandwidth is cheap enough that it’s easier to deal with just buying more when we need it compared with the hassle of dealing with bandwidth management appliances and policies. This has been the way we’ve been operating since we ran out of capacity on our old PacketShaper years ago. Pity that whole product line languished with the Blue Coat acquisition. -- Julian Y. Koh Acting Associate Director, Telecommunications and Network Services Northwestern University Information Technology (NUIT) 2001 Sheridan Road #G-166 Evanston, IL 60208 847-467-5780 NUIT Web Site: PGP Public Key: ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
On 3/5/2014 10:52 AM, Julian Y Koh wrote:
On Wed Mar 05 2014 09:49:30 CST, David Blahut <dablahut@VASSAR.EDU> wrote:
Second, anyone doing nothing to manage bandwidth?
We’re doing nothing. Bandwidth is cheap enough that it’s easier to deal with just buying more when we need it compared with the hassle of dealing with bandwidth management appliances and policies. This has been the way we’ve been operating since we ran out of capacity on our old PacketShaper years ago. Pity that whole product line languished with the Blue Coat acquisition.
Exactly the same here.

-- Rick Coloccia, Jr. Network Manager State University of NY College at Geneseo 1 College Circle, 119 South Hall Geneseo, NY 14454 V: 585-245-5577 F: 585-245-5579 ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Same here. I see QOS as more of an insurance policy to make sure mission critical apps still can get through on the local network, but for Internet apps, it is pretty hard to choose which should get more priority. The other problem is that it is harder and harder to identify applications just by their ports. In addition, you have limited control of incoming traffic unless you do the QOS at the ISP's router. Pete Morrissey

Ditto, we throttle easily identifiable p2p traffic down (but not block it obviously), but otherwise it is wide open for everybody.  We have 250Mbps for our 500 or so residents and the daily use of all students.  We’ve never maxed it out, although we may have some physical bottlenecks in our aging wireless and wired infrastructure that act as a governor of sorts.

 

 

 

We are doing very little as well. Our dorms are all wireless, so we have a high limit on the student group just as a safety threshold. Josh Frank Director Office of Information Technology William Peace University 15 East Peace Street, Raleigh, NC 27604 P: 919.508.2418  .  F: 919.508.2326  .  www.peace.edu Josh.Frank@peace.edu
Thus spake Julian Y Koh (kohster@NORTHWESTERN.EDU) on Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 03:52:52PM +0000: > On Wed Mar 05 2014 09:49:30 CST, David Blahut wrote: > First, anyone successfully using QoS policies to manage bandwidth in > lieu of an appliance such as a PacketShaper or NetEqualizer? we run no QoS at all. > > Second, anyone doing nothing to manage bandwidth? > > > > We’re doing nothing. Bandwidth is cheap enough that it’s easier to deal with just buying more when we need it compared with the hassle of dealing with bandwidth management appliances and policies. +1 Dale ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
We're using PacketShaper. Bandwidth is not nearly as cheap of a commodity in Alaska. With 550Mbps, we're redlining daily with 7K+ concurrent users, and 2,200 residents. We're not caching (yet) though.



Britton Anderson |  Senior Network Communications Specialist |  Office of Information Technology |  907.450.8250



We are a state-wide private institution spanning Michigan.  Bandwidth is not exactly an affordable cost commodity for us.  We utilize a Network Equalizer to share the load. on the centralized internet edge.

I am with you, David Blahut.  But my need is on our WAN.  how can I manage WAN traffic, both user to internet and user to core datacenter and servers.





-
Pete Hoffswell - Network Manager
pete.hoffswell@davenport.edu
http://www.davenport.edu



We utilize bandwidth accounting (students purchase a tier of service). No applications are blocked or slowed, unless the weekly allocation has been consumed, then its modem speeds. We only charge the marginal cost of Internet bandwidth (no infrastructure/staffing). The lowest tier is $1.07/month for 20GB. Numerous reasons: Alignment with institutions core values (freedom of discovery and individual responsibility) -- silences "taxpayer" or inappropriate use of resources arguments (e.g. facebook/Netflix/torrents) Virtuous cycle for funding Serves as copyright infringement deterrent [Higher Education Act Sec. 487(29)A] Safe Harbor (bolsters ISP relationship) Scales well (technology, personnel, socially) OK, we're not entirely there yet. Students still receive 2GB/mo, but its become more of a tease -- over 50% buy or have another allocation and we're proposing eliminating it altogether -- student government has been supportive (want their Internet fast and to do as they please). -- William C. Green e-mail: green@austin.utexas.edu Director, Networking and Telecommunications phone: +1 512-475-9295 ITS (Information Technology Services) fax: +1 512-471-2449 University of Texas 1 University Station Stop C3800 Austin, TX 78712 ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Hi William,
I am curious what applications/methods you are using for accounting and management of the bandwidth. Can you share that info?
thanks
dennis

Dennis Bohn
Manager of Network and Systems
Adelphi University
bohn@adelphi.edu
5168773327


I'm confused a little bit William. Are you doing those things to limit bandwidth, are you moving toward that model, or away from it? Also, currently each student currently only gets 2GB monthly? Is that per device? I can't imagine implementing a 2GB limit here, at least without armed guards in the IT Department. >

Let me start off by saying, to all of you who are in an area where bandwidth cost is no longer an issue .. I hate you.  We too are using the NetEqualizer appliance to hold the student usage at bay.  It requires very little management.  You set the thresholds and let it do it’s magic.  Aside from that, we do implement some QoS for select applications – mostly video.

 

-Brian

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Network Management Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:NETMAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Pete Hoffswell
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 2:47 PM
To: NETMAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [NETMAN] Bandwidth Management

 

We are a state-wide private institution spanning Michigan.  Bandwidth is not exactly an affordable cost commodity for us.  We utilize a Network Equalizer to share the load. on the centralized internet edge.

 

I am with you, David Blahut.  But my need is on our WAN.  how can I manage WAN traffic, both user to internet and user to core datacenter and servers.

 

 

 

 


-
Pete Hoffswell - Network Manager
pete.hoffswell@davenport.edu
http://www.davenport.edu

 

As of this semester we too are doing nothing, favoring to just get more bandwidth if necessary. Our statewide broadband provider to higher ed has the same outlook, stating that they would prefer to make the cost of bandwidth attractive enough to dissuade institutions from needing to run a bandwidth shaping device. 


I am curious what applications/methods you are using for accounting and management of the bandwidth. Can you share that info?
thanks

We put together our own system based on parts we already had to maintain (with or without BW accounting).  netflow for the usual reasons (nprobe off a fiber tap also used for security inspections).  Had identity for the usual reasons (software mapping info from controllers/routers of user to IP address). Billing system to charge for other things (custom, being replaced with market option soon).  2nd class enforcement has varied based on the border equipment traffic passed through -- typically dropped in a broadcast domain/hurt locker with simple mechanisms (e.g. Cisco uBRL, now A10).  Add some mysql and secret sauce.

Hard to package for other's use because universities approach the pieces differently.  I think we'd be interested in any consortium effort if folks have bright ideas.


I'm confused a little bit William. Are you doing those things to limit bandwidth, are you moving toward that model, or away from it? Also, currently each student currently only gets 2GB monthly? Is that per device?

We are moving towards bandwidth purchase with zero default allocation for students.  For the reasons stated in the previous post-- a multi-variable equation to solve.  Not to limit, rather the opposite, to get everyone out of the way.

2GB/month (500MB per week) was sufficient for most students 10 years ago, or they could purchase more.  We knew inflationary forces would enable us to ease into this model over time.  53% purchase or have an allocation (e.g. TA) now.  For those wishing to utilize university networks once adopted, they'll purchase.  I'm hoping Hotspot2.0 will become well supported, we'd like to offer as many ISPs across our wifi infrastructure as will drop a circuit (today only have attwifi).  Important to remember, the university subsidizes the infrastructure (the expensive part required for any mission related use), students are only paying the marginal cost of the Internet bandwidth (very inexpensive).

We used a tiered model for purchases, learning our students preferred that to paying by the byte.  The tiers provide predictable costs and insurance against things going wrong.  They create a some subsidy of higher BW users, but not much.  With 4 tiers, the heavy users move to the high tiers.  We recalculate the rates yearly based on actual consumption in each tier (e.g. avg consumption in tier 1 was 1.4GB/week versus tier 4 of 4.4GB/week).



-William

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Close
Close


EDUCAUSE Connect
View dates and locations

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.

Close

EDUCAUSE Institute
Leadership/Management Programs
Explore More

Career Center


Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management

 

 

Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.

 

Close
EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas

 

 

Join These Programs If Your Focus Is

Close

Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.
 

 

Close

2014 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations


Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.