Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Traffic shaping and ports....

Reply
Thread Tools

Traffic shaping and ports....

 
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:01:02 +1200, Brendan wrote:

> Crap. p2p is the killer app of broadband.


Or to put it another way p2p is the broadband app killer.

I'd be more than happy to have a "no p2p" connection if it meant $10/month
for UBS level stuff now that I wasn't subsidising p2p users (assuming
Craigs guestimate was remotely accurate).

--
Cheers
Anton

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:50:55 +1200, AD. wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:01:02 +1200, Brendan wrote:
>
>> Crap. p2p is the killer app of broadband.

>
> Or to put it another way p2p is the broadband app killer.
>
> I'd be more than happy to have a "no p2p" connection if it meant $10/month
> for UBS level stuff now that I wasn't subsidising p2p users (assuming
> Craigs guestimate was remotely accurate).


<AOL post>
me too
</AOL post>


--
Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Brendan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:50:55 +1200, AD. wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:01:02 +1200, Brendan wrote:
>
>> Crap. p2p is the killer app of broadband.

>
> Or to put it another way p2p is the broadband app killer.


That is not 'putting it another way', it is claiming somthing entirely
different.

And stupid.

I would like you to list other net uses that are more popular than p2p that
REQUIRE broadband speeds of typical residential connections.

> I'd be more than happy to have a "no p2p" connection if it meant $10/month
> for UBS level stuff now that I wasn't subsidising p2p users (assuming
> Craigs guestimate was remotely accurate).


You are not subsidising anyone. It is not OUR fault if Orcon markets it's
connections with 10GB caps it cannot provide.

If you buy $20 of petrol, you do not get given $10 worth and they hope you
will not use the other $10 worth.

10GB of access to the Net is what it is sold as, not 10GB of access to
their caches. Or 10GB of access to artificially hobbled access to the net.

--

.... Brendan

#328464 +(4373)- [X]

SparTacus ((E-Mail Removed)) has joined #santcuary
*SparTacus is now known as Betty_Guns
wacko Jacko ((E-Mail Removed)) has joined #santcuary
<wacko_Jacko>ok spartacus just came n here i know it. which one of you is
that loser?
<hunney> I am spartacus
<ji_pper>no im spartacus
<Betty_Guns>I am spartacus
<mistr andersn>Ióm spartacus
<wacko_Jacko>ur all freaks thats what u r


Note: All my comments are copyright 17/08/2005 11:29:52 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:47:26 +1200, Brendan wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:50:55 +1200, AD. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:01:02 +1200, Brendan wrote:
>>
>>> Crap. p2p is the killer app of broadband.

>>
>> Or to put it another way p2p is the broadband app killer.

>
> That is not 'putting it another way', it is claiming somthing entirely
> different.
>
> And stupid.


Maybe if I had've put a smiley you wouldn't have frothed at the mouth so
much.

> I would like you to list other net uses that are more popular than p2p
> that REQUIRE broadband speeds of typical residential connections.


Since when does REQUIRE come into it? How about DESIRE?

I would like things like faster downloads than dial up (you try keeping
Debian Sid up to date on dial up), always on connections, no tying up the
phone etc etc.

>> I'd be more than happy to have a "no p2p" connection if it meant
>> $10/month for UBS level stuff now that I wasn't subsidising p2p users
>> (assuming Craigs guestimate was remotely accurate).

>
> You are not subsidising anyone.


Huh? If a minority of users use the majority of the capacity and the
costs aren't directly proportional, how is that not subsidising?

> It is not OUR fault if Orcon markets it's connections with 10GB caps it
> cannot provide.
>
> If you buy $20 of petrol, you do not get given $10 worth and they hope
> you will not use the other $10 worth.


Lame analogy. With petrol you pay for exactly how much you use, and
you get to keep what you don't use each month and use it next month.

If the costs aren't directly proportional to each users usage, then some
users are subsidising others. And no I'm not advocating that just stating
it clearly for you.

> 10GB of access to the Net is what it is sold as, not 10GB of access to
> their caches. Or 10GB of access to artificially hobbled access to the
> net.


I thought it was 10GB up and down your little wire which is what it was
sold as.

Anyway, you're going off on a tangent. I'm not an Orcon user and don't
care about how crap they are or not - I was commenting on the hypothetical
$10/month if it wasn't for p2p usage. And if that statement was even
remotely realistic, surely you can see that it would be an attractive deal
for users that don't care about p2p, and by its very nature prove that non
p2p users are subsidising p2p users.

--
Cheers
Anton

 
Reply With Quote
 
Craig Whitmore
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005

>>
>> In that case, I wonder if Orcon are using genuine L7 products? (well thay
>> say L7 QOS on their website)


Genuine L7? Well yes
>


>The only danger with such a system is people who run p2p apps on the
>standard ports effectively bypassing the shaping. However, that is rare, and
>some isps proxying process will break that.
>


Kazza is a good example of this.. when the 1st version came out it
used port 1412 and yaya.. easily slowed down.. then it started to use
port 80 and then random ports. so L4 QOS is impossible to pick up
Kazaa traffic. The only way is Layer 7.

Thanks
Craig


 
Reply With Quote
 
Kazonme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:12:09 +1200, Shane <(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:50:55 +1200, AD. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:01:02 +1200, Brendan wrote:
>>
>>> Crap. p2p is the killer app of broadband.

>>

Regardelss

Now, is the capped bandwidth inclide local + international traffic!
That's is the issue?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Brendan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:41:54 +1200, AD. wrote:

>>> Or to put it another way p2p is the broadband app killer.

>>
>> That is not 'putting it another way', it is claiming somthing entirely
>> different.
>>
>> And stupid.

>
> Maybe if I had've put a smiley you wouldn't have frothed at the mouth so
> much.


Maybe.

>> I would like you to list other net uses that are more popular than p2p
>> that REQUIRE broadband speeds of typical residential connections.

>
> Since when does REQUIRE come into it? How about DESIRE?


Require comes into it when your alternative is impractical - like
downloading iso's over dial up.

> I would like things like faster downloads than dial up (you try keeping
> Debian Sid up to date on dial up), always on connections, no tying up the
> phone etc etc.


Yeah, like I said - require.

>> You are not subsidising anyone.

>
> Huh? If a minority of users use the majority of the capacity and the
> costs aren't directly proportional, how is that not subsidising?


It's not subsidising because if that is the case, it's actually a business
model.

Orcon decided to SAY they could do 10gb for everyone, knowing full well
they could not but hoping most people would not need 10gb.

What they failed to take into account - foolishly- is that the main use of
broadband is major file transfer. P2p makes this easy for everyone.

>> If you buy $20 of petrol, you do not get given $10 worth and they hope
>> you will not use the other $10 worth.

>
> Lame analogy. With petrol you pay for exactly how much you use, and
> you get to keep what you don't use each month and use it next month.


We could be doing the same with data cap, if telecom let us. It's a purely
artificial difference.

> If the costs aren't directly proportional to each users usage, then some
> users are subsidising others. And no I'm not advocating that just stating
> it clearly for you.


ok, but it is not the fault of the customer if Orcon misjudges it's uses.

>> 10GB of access to the Net is what it is sold as, not 10GB of access to
>> their caches. Or 10GB of access to artificially hobbled access to the
>> net.

>
> I thought it was 10GB up and down your little wire which is what it was
> sold as.


Same difference.

> Anyway, you're going off on a tangent. I'm not an Orcon user and don't
> care about how crap they are or not - I was commenting on the hypothetical
> $10/month if it wasn't for p2p usage. And if that statement was even
> remotely realistic, surely you can see that it would be an attractive deal
> for users that don't care about p2p, and by its very nature prove that non
> p2p users are subsidising p2p users.


They used to have accounts like that (the 600mb jetstream ones). Remember
those ? They were not popular.

Why ?

Because people could not download much of what they wanted. Which was not
web pages and email....

--

.... Brendan

#416857 +(3771)- [X]

<born1986> why the **** isn't my disc drive working
<born1986> i ****ing worked on that essay for three friggin' hours in
school
<born1986> i now i cant finish it 'cos my ****in drive ain't working
<Z00ass> you got the right drivers?
<born1986> hell yes
<born1986> it was working fine yesterday
<born1986> why does this **** always happen to me?
<Z00ass> maybe that little clip on the side is i nthe wrong position
<born1986> i havent touched it since school
<born1986> i'm growing impatient
<born1986> ANGRY even
<Z00ass> throw that **** out tha window

.. . .

<born1986> OMG i ****in did it!!!
<born1986> ****!!!!!
<Z00ass> it works?
<born1986> no, i threw it out the window
<Z00ass> the disk?
<born1986> NO the whole drive
<born1986> i live on the 6th floor, made a nice *smash*
<Z00ass>
<born1986> **** **** ****
<born1986> THE DISK WAS STILL INSIDE
<born1986> brb

.. . .

<born1986> ****
<Z00ass> what? did ya break it?
<born1986> well i couldn't open the drive
<born1986> so i had to pound it against a rock
<Z00ass>
<born1986> quite HARD
<born1986> and you know what?
<born1986> that ****ing disk wasnt even there
<Z00ass> ???
<born1986> i got so mad i threw the remaiders of the drive on to the
freeway
<born1986> and when i got back upstairs i foud the disk inside my bag
<Z00ass> lol
<born1986> I NEVER EVEN PUT IT IN THE DRIVE
<born1986> i'm actually cryin right now

.. . .

<born1986> wonder if i could make that drive work again
<born1986> brb


Note: All my comments are copyright 18/08/2005 12:35:27 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
 
Reply With Quote
 
FreedomChooser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:01:02 +1200, Brendan <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:52:47 +1200, Craig Whitmore wrote:
>
>> Yes people complain about P2P speeds.. but do you really think that
>> downloading illegal material off the net is "right".

>
>If by 'illegal' you mean copyrighted, then yes - I do think it is right.
>IP law exists at the sufferance of the electorate. That electorate is now
>displaying it's dissatisfaction with IP law by disobeying it en-mass; IP
>law has no mandate for it's current incarnation.


we live in a democracy not anarchy
a mandate exists because the people have not elected a goverment to
chaneg IP laws

 
Reply With Quote
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:49:26 +1200, someone purporting to be
FreedomChooser didst scrawl:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:01:02 +1200, Brendan <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:

*SNIP*
>>If by 'illegal' you mean copyrighted, then yes - I do think it is right.
>>IP law exists at the sufferance of the electorate. That electorate is now
>>displaying it's dissatisfaction with IP law by disobeying it en-mass; IP
>>law has no mandate for it's current incarnation.

>
> we live in a democracy not anarchy
> a mandate exists because the people have not elected a goverment to
> chaneg IP laws


No party has yet stood on a platform of IP-law reform, though Labour are
at least revising the Copyright Act.
How do you give someone a mandate when nobody is offering what you seek?
Your only option is to rabble-rouse through civil disobedience, and hope
that eventually the politicians get a clue - vain hope, I know.
--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bret
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:49:26 +1200, FreedomChooser
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:01:02 +1200, Brendan <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:52:47 +1200, Craig Whitmore wrote:
>>
>>> Yes people complain about P2P speeds.. but do you really think that
>>> downloading illegal material off the net is "right".

>>
>>If by 'illegal' you mean copyrighted, then yes - I do think it is right.
>>IP law exists at the sufferance of the electorate. That electorate is now
>>displaying it's dissatisfaction with IP law by disobeying it en-mass; IP
>>law has no mandate for it's current incarnation.

>
>we live in a democracy not anarchy
>a mandate exists because the people have not elected a goverment to
>chaneg IP laws


Well, in that case there is a mandate for anything you want to name.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Traffic-shaping traffic with precedence 2 tpdasilva@gmail.com Cisco 1 10-04-2011 06:32 AM
Azereus, Traffic shaping (avoid traffic shaping in with azereus) Nova NZ Computing 2 03-20-2006 09:03 AM
How does typical ISP traffic shaping/bandwidth limiting work ? Do ISP's allow bursty traffic per second ? Skybuck Flying Cisco 0 01-19-2006 08:50 PM
traffic-shaping limit ftp traffic Hypno999 Cisco 5 10-08-2005 07:25 AM
Frame Relay Traffic shaping, adaptive shaping Kenny D Cisco 1 12-05-2003 05:15 PM



Advertisments