«

Hi there.

Can you please email me directly ()

Thanks

"Craig Whitmore" <> wrote in message
news:425cae3e$...
> Hi there.
>
> Can you please email me directly ()
>
> Thanks
>
>

Tell them to remove 'all' the port shaping/throttling before you'll help
them with their news server setup.

Mike_P

Mike_P wrote:
> Tell them to remove 'all' the port shaping/throttling before you'll help
> them with their news server setup.

Haha, not a bad idea. Realistically, some sort of shaping is required
otherwise the connection becomes unusable. Too much, or blindly rate
limiting by port, is definitely a bad thing.

ISPs should rate limit, but it should be based on the CIR/PIR... give
every connection a 2Kbs^-1 CIR, 32kbs^-1 PIR, allocated from a total
bandwith pool.

Not being involved in ISP operations I'm not sure how well that would
work in practice, or if it would scale from small business grade
bandwidth pool to a large scale residential deployment. I know for
example that PF under OpenBSD/FreeBSD is limited in precision by timing
factors (quantum cycles, clock resolution etc.). Add to that the number
of lookups necessary for determining which packets to send/queue/drop,
and it is likely it just isn't technically feasible to do it that way.

The Other Guy

Mike_P wrote:
> "Craig Whitmore" <> wrote in message
> news:425cae3e$...
>> Hi there.
>>
>> Can you please email me directly ()
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
> Tell them to remove 'all' the port shaping/throttling before you'll
> help them with their news server setup.

Are you one of the heavy users Mike?

When I rang them yesterday and asked about traffic shaping and how it
affects me they looked at my stats and told me that, no, I'm certainly not
getting shaped anymore and I'm one of the customers that they want to keep.
(Their words).

I told them they ned to fix my latency problem if they want to keep me. I
mainly use my connection for on-line gaming. I don't move a lot of data at
all but what little i move needs to move fast(er).
--
~misfit~

The Other Guy wrote:
>> Tell them to remove 'all' the port shaping/throttling before you'll
>> help them with their news server setup.

> Haha, not a bad idea. Realistically, some sort of shaping is required
> otherwise the connection becomes unusable. Too much, or blindly rate
> limiting by port, is definitely a bad thing.

> ISPs should rate limit, but it should be based on the CIR/PIR... give
> every connection a 2Kbs^-1 CIR, 32kbs^-1 PIR, allocated from a total
> bandwith pool.

> I know for
> example that PF under OpenBSD/FreeBSD is limited in precision by timing
> factors (quantum cycles, clock resolution etc.). Add to that the number
> of lookups necessary for determining which packets to send/queue/drop,
> and it is likely it just isn't technically feasible to do it that way.

When a few mates and I were looking at this, PF would more than likely
limit all to CIR rather than allowing PIR when it was availible.

"~misfit~" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Mike_P wrote:
>> "Craig Whitmore" <> wrote in message
>> news:425cae3e$...
>>> Hi there.
>>>
>>> Can you please email me directly ()
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Tell them to remove 'all' the port shaping/throttling before you'll
>> help them with their news server setup.
>
> Are you one of the heavy users Mike?
>
> When I rang them yesterday and asked about traffic shaping and how it
> affects me they looked at my stats and told me that, no, I'm certainly not
> getting shaped anymore and I'm one of the customers that they want to
> keep.
> (Their words).
>
> I told them they ned to fix my latency problem if they want to keep me. I
> mainly use my connection for on-line gaming. I don't move a lot of data at
> all but what little i move needs to move fast(er).
> --
> ~misfit~
>
>

Nah, definitely not a heavy user, about 2-3Gb/month. And yeah, they told me
that (I'm not being port shaped) last week too. But did you notice the
difference yesterday when the finally removed (the so called non-existent)
port shaping from port 119... I mean Wow !.

My 11yo son uses (or used to use) WinMX to download guitar riffs for his
Rock School guitar exams. That app has been completely dead on Orcon since
December (but works great on dial-up). On Orcon it connects ok but the
connections just timeout because of the 0k/s bandwidth available.

And Skype has also been crippled by them. You can change the settings
however to port 80 but why the f* should you have to.?

If they are no longer port shaping, or bandwidth limiting, or throttling
then I for one am yet to see any evidence of it.

Mike_P

In article <>, "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
>Seeby Woodhouse - Orcon Internet wrote:
>> We are waiting on a UBS PVC upgrade at present - hopefully if / once that
>> happens we'll have another 10 - 20% of UBS capacity, and we currently have
>> 30-40 megs of free International bandwidth that we'll throw at the pipe
>> straight away if we can.
>
>BTW it is nice to see you posting here again, most ISPs wont show their
>"face" in "adversity"

... or "at all" for that matter.


Bruce


-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

not a heavy user, about 2-3Gb/month. And yeah, they told me
> that (I'm not being port shaped) last week too. But did you notice the
> difference yesterday when the finally removed (the so called non-existent)
> port shaping from port 119... I mean Wow !.
>

Port 119 wasn't shaped to be singled out, but it was bundled in with the
rest of the traffic which is limited a certain amount - only to manage the
UBS pipe congestion which everyone should be aware of by now.

The shaping is done at the edge of our network, and now that the news server
is 'local' we can't / don't shape traffic to it (along with other stuff like
traffic to our mail servers etc), which is why it is so much faster

We are waiting on a UBS PVC upgrade at present - hopefully if / once that
happens we'll have another 10 - 20% of UBS capacity, and we currently have
30-40 megs of free International bandwidth that we'll throw at the pipe
straight away if we can.

Seeby

In article <>, "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
>Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>>>We are waiting on a UBS PVC upgrade at present - hopefully if / once that
>>>>happens we'll have another 10 - 20% of UBS capacity, and we currently have
>>>>30-40 megs of free International bandwidth that we'll throw at the pipe
>>>>straight away if we can.
>>>BTW it is nice to see you posting here again, most ISPs wont show their
>>>"face" in "adversity"
>
>> ... or "at all" for that matter.
>you'd be surprised at who lurks here... I know of atleast 9 ISP
>higher-ups who read, but don't post.
>
>well, when they have time.

Go on ... out them ... what do they have to fear except ridicule itself ?



Bruce


-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

Seeby Woodhouse - Orcon Internet wrote:
> We are waiting on a UBS PVC upgrade at present - hopefully if / once that
> happens we'll have another 10 - 20% of UBS capacity, and we currently have
> 30-40 megs of free International bandwidth that we'll throw at the pipe
> straight away if we can.

BTW it is nice to see you posting here again, most ISPs wont show their
"face" in "adversity"