iptrans

Obvious caveats:

GPON networks are often vendor locked. This means you cannot just buy any random SFP ONU and expect it work.

Even if you do get it to work, no ISP will offer you any kind of support if you do this. Some might even take to it poorly, if they find out.

Generally, the best option is to ask your ISP if they offer other ONU models and choose from those.

Bulk transfers aren’t that being interesting from a networking perspective.

You gonna have a bad time if you optimize only for the best case scenario.

Even using IMIX is a low bar. The proper way to do things is linerate using small packets.

Interrupt moderation only gives a modest improvement, as can be seen from the benchmarking done by Intel.

Intel would also not have gone through the effort to develop DPDK if all you had to do to achieve linerate performance would be to enable interrupt moderation.

Furthermore, quoting Gbps numbers is beside the point when the limiting factor is packets per second. It is trivial to improve Gbps numbers simply by using larger packets.

TCP/IP offload isn’t the issue.

The core problem is that the Linux kernel uses interrupts for handling packets. This limits Linux networking performance in terms of packets per second. The limit is about a million packets per second per core.

For reference 10GE is about 16 million packets per second at line rate using small packets.

This is why you have to use kernel bypass software in user space to get linerate performance above 10G in Linux.

Popular software for this use case utilize DPDK, XDP or VPP.

Google fiber had very specific requirements for their build-out. Not all locations were able or equipped to meet those demands.

Other than that, what specific regulation are you referring to?

More often than not it’s the economics that prevent overbuilding an existing monopoly rather than regulatory barriers.

Does not help.

Tor is heavily throttled and blocked.

Oh, sweet summer child, do you think you can escape the NSA? :)

More seriously, private ISPs in a (local) government owned open access network does not mean the (local) government controls and observes everything.

If you are afraid of the local government, run for office.

What could possibly go right?

Read the comment about NZ. Or refer to Sweden.

There is only so much wireless spectrum.

Multiple companies are allowed to lay fiver. It’s not regulation that prevents overbuilding but economics.

> An ISP grows a large user base by doing aggressive price competition, then starts shaking down services, rate limiting their traffic if they don't pay up.

Yeah, we’ve already seen this in the Comcast/Netflix debacle and Deutche Telekom vs the world. In fact a lot of large incumbents do this.

> Meanwhile they use some of the shakedown money to lower prices and get more users.

If things were even so rosy. The shakedown money is used for larger profits and monopoly positions to get more users.

Sound like you are probably just overpaying for bandwidth and/or DDoS protection.

BGP doesn’t work that way.

You cannot control who your prefix is announced to, unless you control all the paths on the Internet.

Only for outbound traffic, tho.

For eyeball networks and other stub networks this is mostly fine.

I’m interested to hear how you

1) block 2 Tbps of attack traffic

2) save $500k per month in bandwidth charges since blocking at the border means you have to pay for the incoming bandwidth

Because your ISP is not keen on paying for third parties transiting their network.