Has anyone used Netequalizer?

[Cooky]

One of our customers wants to install a Net Equalizer to shape their inbound Internet traffic so that no user can "hog" the circuit.

We're against it since it looks like something geared towards small & medium businesses, and not an enterprise grade device.
We already have PacketShapers on our network, and therefore recommended it to them.
They're of course shocked by the price tag...a PacketShaper 3500 model is listed as $19000, while the "equivalent class" of a NetEqualizer is only $3600.

If anyone's deployed a NetEqualizer, could you please share your experience?

thanks.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

I've not used this product, but a similar one called a packeteer and it worked great. Owned by bluecoat now it seems

http://www.bluecoat.com/products/packetshaper

 

[Cooky]

Thanks.
We actually already have two PacketShaper 10000 ISP's.

We're asking about the NetEqualizer for a few remote sites that aren't as big, and may not warrant the budget for PS 3500's.

 

[jlazzaro]

i've never used NetEqualizer products, but their website looks pretty gimmicky ;x

 

[tetra]

This has some good info -- http://netequalizernews.com/20...izer-users-are-saying/

I realize it's on the Netequalizer blog, but there are links to the original comments which are generally part of threads on listservs, etc. You could always ask this same question on one of those if you're still curious.

This is there, too, and may give you a better idea of the similarities and differences between neteq and packeteer -- http://netequalizernews.com/20...t-inspection-products/

 

[sheskett]

We are a wireless ISP in Colorado and we use the netequalizer product on our network to provide bandwidth shaping and throttling. The netequalizer has been on our network for over 5 years now and we are very pleased with the product and the tech support.

5 years ago we started with a couple bonded T-1s and the netequalizer. As our network grew and fiber became available we switched to a DS3 (45Mbps). We recently upgraded our main circuit from a DS3 to an OC3 (150Mbps). Since we already had fiber we figured a 60-90 day lead time was enough for Qwest to provide the larger OC3. We were sorely mistaken. Because of our remote location Qwest was not able to deliver the OC3 until about a year after we ordered the circuit! (they claimed they didn't have the capacity to provide the OC3 to the city where our main POP is located). We therefore started maxing our DS3 circuit from 8pm-11pm. By the time Qwest delivered the OC3 12 months later our DS3 was maxing out from about 8am to 12am (pretty much all day) The netequalizer saved our life and our business.

The traffic shaping and throttling helped smooth out the traffic flowing across our main circuit and none of our users noticed any performance degradation. The built in shaping rules automatically figure out which traffic to prioritize and which traffic to put a clamp on when the circuit is loaded.

Feel free to PM me or post replies to this forum if you have any questions about the product. We are extremely satisfied with the neteq. We also investigated the packeteer product and the price-point was way too high, the neteq accomplishes the same thing at a fraction of the cost.

 

[Cooky]

Thanks everyone for your response.

Based on my research, NetEq is good if you have a homogeneous environment where the main objective is to give every user equal amount of bandwidth.
It's however, not suited for large enterprises if L7 visibility is a requirement.
Also the host list is limited to /24 convention.
This means if you need to define a larger subnet, you'll need multiple /24 statements. Similarly if your subnet is smaller than /24, you're out of luck.

Since we're inquiring about this for a small site, and the cost is really cheap (~4K), we decided to get one as a pilot.

 

[astormchaser]

Cooky,

Thanks for considering us.

Just a couple of Clarifications


"Based on my research, NetEq is good if you have a homogeneous environment where the main objective is to give every user equal amount of bandwidth. "


The NetEqualizer uses a bit more intelligence than that... this is from our support archive

http://netequalizernews.com/20...r-support-archives/#39

We don?t just divide the bandwidth equally like a ?brain dead? controller. It is a system of dynamic priorities that rewards smaller users at the expense of heavy users, it is very very dynamic and there is not pre set limit on any user. In fact we do not keep track of users at all, we monitor user streams. So a user may be getting one stream slowed down while at the same time having another stream untouched.

Also Situations where we cut back large streams are generally for a short duration. The NetEqualizer has a special feature whereby you can exempt and give priority to any IP address specifically for this kind of event. I am sure in this case they know what server the video is coming from.

The way I explain it is: most admins can easily identify and exempt a rare exception to our shaping rules which get it ?right? most of the time. And at our price point this is what admins are gravitating toward.


"Also the host list is limited to /24 convention. "


yes it is true, Our host list limit for setting rate limits is done by /24 subnet, but you can specify smaller segments quite easily, I admit it may not be obvious from the GUI.

art reisman
CTO www.netequalizer.com

 

[pshella]

I am new to the NetEqualizer product. I started a new network admin job 9 months ago and inherited a NE4000 box. Honestly, at first I was skeptical of the NetEq. Much of my network training background included layer 7 packet shapers such as a Packeteer or Exinda device. However, a couple of challeges have arisen in recent years. One, the cost of 100Mbps+ bandwidth has gotten much more affordable. While this is a good thing, the challenge is the cost of layer 7 shapers for these larger pipes. We have a 300Mbps pipe, the cost of a layer 7 shaper for that size pipe and one that can scale higher as our demand increases is in the many tens of thousands of dollars. Secondly, more and more traffic is becoming encrypted making layer 7 inspecting devices ineffective. With the NetEq box, I don't have to worry about either of these issues. A comment earlier in this thread was a concern for the "enterprise" quality of a NetEq. We have over 2000 users on our network and the NE4000 scales to 5Gbps, I don't have any concerns about "enterprise" quality. In my 9 months here, I've been pleasantly surprised by the simplicity and effectiveness of the NetEq box on our network. The NetEq does what is says it can do, our users are happy with the quality of internet access provided, and our experience with APconnections support for software upgrades has been positive.

 

[David Ross]

Thanks.
We actually already have two PacketShaper 10000 ISP's.

We're asking about the NetEqualizer for a few remote sites that aren't as big, and may not warrant the budget for PS 3500's.

Look into the ET/BWMGR. Not as many bells and whistles as Bluecoat, but it amazingly efficient. We're testing the new Traffic Monitor and it just hums along at 350Mb/s. We identified and stopped an annoying DNS attack in a few minutes. They're about 1/4 of the price of Blue Coat and they claim to scale to 10G/s. I really want to fire this up on a new 12 core E5 system.

www.etinc.com

 

[Pulsar]

Look into the ET/BWMGR. Not as many bells and whistles as Bluecoat, but it amazingly efficient. We're testing the new Traffic Monitor and it just hums along at 350Mb/s. We identified and stopped an annoying DNS attack in a few minutes. They're about 1/4 of the price of Blue Coat and they claim to scale to 10G/s. I really want to fire this up on a new 12 core E5 system.

www.etinc.com

That's great. You're only THREE YEARS LATE.

A supposed 'tech guy' necros a thread from three years ago.....

Is it any suprise that the new 'first time poster' suggesting ET/BWMGR is from Miami, and ETINC the manufacturer is in Fort Lauterdale, 10 miles away?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?