Orcon and P2P: Limiting?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Mark, Jul 3, 2005.

  1. Mark

    Mark Guest

    Are Orcon limiting P2P on the UBS 256 offering?
    Thanks
    Mark
     
    Mark, Jul 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark

    A.D. Guest

    Mark wrote:
    > Are Orcon limiting P2P on the UBS 256 offering?
    > Thanks
    > Mark
    >
    >


    Yes, packet shaping on certain ports used by P2P. Read back thru the
    nz.comp history to see the big stream of conversations.

    A.D.
     
    A.D., Jul 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 07:25:44 +1200, "Mark" <>
    wrote:

    >Are Orcon limiting P2P on the UBS 256 offering?


    Yes, makes you want to rename BitTorrent to BitTrickle.

    --
    Kristofer Clayton (KJClayton)
    Gisborne, New Zealand
     
    Kristofer Clayton, Jul 4, 2005
    #3
  4. On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 01:33:44 UTC, "A.D." <> wrote:

    > Mark wrote:
    > > Are Orcon limiting P2P on the UBS 256 offering?
    > > Thanks
    > > Mark
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Yes, packet shaping on certain ports used by P2P. Read back thru the
    > nz.comp history to see the big stream of conversations.
    >
    > A.D.


    Are you sure it is Orcon doing the shaping? I am currently having a
    problem with my World-Net 256 kibit/s bitsream connection where they
    tell me it is Telecom doing the shaping. If I max out the connection
    with international traffic, after a while the speed drops to only 5
    kibytes/s. As soon as I stop all traffic momentarily, the speed goes
    back up to something like the normal 32 kibytes/s.
     
    Stephen Worthington, Jul 4, 2005
    #4
  5. Mark

    Alameda Guest

    "Kristofer Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 07:25:44 +1200, "Mark" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >makes you want to rename BitTorrent to BitTrickle.


    Haha, too true. We hear so much about BitTorrent being "the most efficient
    way of distributing large files" blah blah blah. Yeah, right. I could
    receive it faster if someone hand-fed each byte of data required to a
    carrier pigeon and spewed it out it's ass while I hold a wine glass
    underneath.
     
    Alameda, Jul 4, 2005
    #5
  6. Mark

    Richard Guest

    A.D. wrote:
    > Mark wrote:
    >
    >> Are Orcon limiting P2P on the UBS 256 offering?
    >> Thanks
    >> Mark
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Yes, packet shaping on certain ports used by P2P. Read back thru the
    > nz.comp history to see the big stream of conversations.


    I can still get good speeds on the torrents, but as soon as a single http
    download is opened, that rockets up to 28k/sec and the torrents just grind to a
    halt till the http is finished. really annoying.
     
    Richard, Jul 4, 2005
    #6
  7. Stephen Worthington wrote:
    >>>Are Orcon limiting P2P on the UBS 256 offering?


    >>Yes, packet shaping on certain ports used by P2P. Read back thru the
    >>nz.comp history to see the big stream of conversations.


    > Are you sure it is Orcon doing the shaping? I am currently having a
    > problem with my World-Net 256 kibit/s bitsream connection where they
    > tell me it is Telecom doing the shaping. If I max out the connection
    > with international traffic, after a while the speed drops to only 5
    > kibytes/s. As soon as I stop all traffic momentarily, the speed goes
    > back up to something like the normal 32 kibytes/s.


    Telecom allocate the ISPs 24kbit/s per 256kbit/s customer... so it is
    technically true... but ISPs can further shape this so that
    http/pop3/smtp/ftp is prioritised over any other traffic if they so please.

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
    http://synaptic.net.nz <- Dunedin Based IT and ISP services
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jul 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Mark

    Dave Taylor Guest

    "Alameda" <> wrote in news:42c8f84e$:

    > Yeah, right. I could
    > receive it faster if someone hand-fed each byte of data required to a
    > carrier pigeon and spewed it out it's ass while I hold a wine glass
    > underneath.
    >


    Been done:
    http://news.com.com/2100-1001-257064.html?legacy=cnet

    --
    Ciao, Dave
     
    Dave Taylor, Jul 5, 2005
    #8
  9. Mark

    Alameda Guest

    "Dave Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns968AC7E20D955daveytaynospamplshot@203.97.37.6...
    > "Alameda" <> wrote in
    > news:42c8f84e$:
    >
    >> Yeah, right. I could
    >> receive it faster if someone hand-fed each byte of data required to a
    >> carrier pigeon and spewed it out it's ass while I hold a wine glass
    >> underneath.
    >>

    >
    > Been done:
    > http://news.com.com/2100-1001-257064.html?legacy=cnet
    >


    :)))))) Hehe, on reflection I wish my original analogy was expressed
    somewhat more eloquently.
     
    Alameda, Jul 5, 2005
    #9
  10. On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 19:05:34 UTC, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
    <> wrote:

    > Stephen Worthington wrote:
    > >>>Are Orcon limiting P2P on the UBS 256 offering?

    >
    > >>Yes, packet shaping on certain ports used by P2P. Read back thru the
    > >>nz.comp history to see the big stream of conversations.

    >
    > > Are you sure it is Orcon doing the shaping? I am currently having a
    > > problem with my World-Net 256 kibit/s bitsream connection where they
    > > tell me it is Telecom doing the shaping. If I max out the connection
    > > with international traffic, after a while the speed drops to only 5
    > > kibytes/s. As soon as I stop all traffic momentarily, the speed goes
    > > back up to something like the normal 32 kibytes/s.

    >
    > Telecom allocate the ISPs 24kbit/s per 256kbit/s customer... so it is
    > technically true... but ISPs can further shape this so that
    > http/pop3/smtp/ftp is prioritised over any other traffic if they so please.
    >


    Ouch! Only 24 kibits/s - that is 10.7% of the maximum bandwidth
    usage. That seems way low to me. I would have thought they would
    have needed 30% or so, to cope with the peak usage.

    Still, I would not mind too much if they just handled congestion
    sensibly and left the rest to the ISPs. But what is happening to me
    is that they are targetting the international traffic usage only, and
    that makes no sense at all as World-Net has their own international
    connections and does not use Telecom bandwidth for that. So if the
    traffic shaping I am seeing is really supposed to be dealing with the
    24 kibits/s allowance, it makes no sense at all to leave the national
    traffic untouched. My guess is that they are still trying to make the
    bitstream connections work badly for other ISPs to drive people to
    sign up with them. In other words, unfair competition by a monopoly
    provider.
     
    Stephen Worthington, Jul 5, 2005
    #10
  11. Stephen Worthington wrote:
    >>Telecom allocate the ISPs 24kbit/s per 256kbit/s customer... so it is
    >>technically true... but ISPs can further shape this so that
    >>http/pop3/smtp/ftp is prioritised over any other traffic if they so please.


    > Ouch! Only 24 kibits/s - that is 10.7% of the maximum bandwidth
    > usage. That seems way low to me. I would have thought they would
    > have needed 30% or so, to cope with the peak usage.


    yep, nasty aye... and then the users blame the ISP...

    > But what is happening to me
    > is that they are targetting the international traffic usage only, and
    > that makes no sense at all as World-Net has their own international
    > connections and does not use Telecom bandwidth for that.


    Maybe worldnet are having a tightening of the purse strings moment?
    drop the bandwidth allocation until you get complaints, then ease off a
    bit is how these things seem to go in some places.

    > So if the
    > traffic shaping I am seeing is really supposed to be dealing with the
    > 24 kibits/s allowance, it makes no sense at all to leave the national
    > traffic untouched.


    I dont think the 24kbit thing is a you/telecom issue, is sounds more
    like a you/ISP issue.

    > My guess is that they are still trying to make the
    > bitstream connections work badly for other ISPs to drive people to
    > sign up with them. In other words, unfair competition by a monopoly
    > provider.


    no comment, none needed.

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
    http://synaptic.net.nz <- Dunedin Based IT and ISP services
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jul 5, 2005
    #11
  12. Mark

    Shane Guest

    On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:06:08 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Stephen Worthington wrote:
    >>>Telecom allocate the ISPs 24kbit/s per 256kbit/s customer... so it is
    >>>technically true... but ISPs can further shape this so that
    >>>http/pop3/smtp/ftp is prioritised over any other traffic if they so
    >>>please.

    >
    >> Ouch! Only 24 kibits/s - that is 10.7% of the maximum bandwidth usage.
    >> That seems way low to me. I would have thought they would have needed
    >> 30% or so, to cope with the peak usage.

    >
    > yep, nasty aye... and then the users blame the ISP...
    >
    >> But what is happening to me
    >> is that they are targetting the international traffic usage only, and
    >> that makes no sense at all as World-Net has their own international
    >> connections and does not use Telecom bandwidth for that.

    >
    > Maybe worldnet are having a tightening of the purse strings moment? drop
    > the bandwidth allocation until you get complaints, then ease off a bit is
    > how these things seem to go in some places.
    >
    >> So if the
    >> traffic shaping I am seeing is really supposed to be dealing with the 24
    >> kibits/s allowance, it makes no sense at all to leave the national
    >> traffic untouched.

    >
    > I dont think the 24kbit thing is a you/telecom issue, is sounds more like
    > a you/ISP issue.
    >
    >> My guess is that they are still trying to make the bitstream connections
    >> work badly for other ISPs to drive people to sign up with them. In
    >> other words, unfair competition by a monopoly provider.

    >
    > no comment, none needed.


    One of the guys at work is on worldnet and was moaning about the same
    thing (Bit trickle) He fixed it somehow ( he didnt say how) it _could_
    have been because he set it for port 80?


    --
    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.
     
    Shane, Jul 6, 2005
    #12
  13. Shane wrote:
    > One of the guys at work is on worldnet and was moaning about the same
    > thing (Bit trickle) He fixed it somehow ( he didnt say how) it _could_
    > have been because he set it for port 80?


    it depends on how the traffic is filtered, but using "non-standard
    ports" will do it a lot of the time.

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
    http://synaptic.net.nz <- Dunedin Based IT and ISP services
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jul 6, 2005
    #13
  14. On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:06:08 UTC, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
    <> wrote:

    > Stephen Worthington wrote:
    > >>Telecom allocate the ISPs 24kbit/s per 256kbit/s customer... so it is
    > >>technically true... but ISPs can further shape this so that
    > >>http/pop3/smtp/ftp is prioritised over any other traffic if they so please.

    >
    > > Ouch! Only 24 kibits/s - that is 10.7% of the maximum bandwidth
    > > usage. That seems way low to me. I would have thought they would
    > > have needed 30% or so, to cope with the peak usage.

    >
    > yep, nasty aye... and then the users blame the ISP...
    >
    > > But what is happening to me
    > > is that they are targetting the international traffic usage only, and
    > > that makes no sense at all as World-Net has their own international
    > > connections and does not use Telecom bandwidth for that.

    >
    > Maybe worldnet are having a tightening of the purse strings moment?
    > drop the bandwidth allocation until you get complaints, then ease off a
    > bit is how these things seem to go in some places.
    >
    > > So if the
    > > traffic shaping I am seeing is really supposed to be dealing with the
    > > 24 kibits/s allowance, it makes no sense at all to leave the national
    > > traffic untouched.

    >
    > I dont think the 24kbit thing is a you/telecom issue, is sounds more
    > like a you/ISP issue.


    No, I have talked to World-Net and they assure me that they have
    plenty of international bandwidth, well in excess of current
    requirements. They say they are a bandwidth provider to other ISPs.
    They tell me that the traffic shaping is all Telecom's - they do not
    do any. They do run transparent web servers on port 80 though.

    The traffic shaping changed last Thursday (30th). Prior to that,
    international traffic on all ports was limited to 4 kibytes/s, except
    for port 80, and, as I also discovered, port 23. My binary news
    servers both supported the use of NNTP on port 23, so that is what I
    did and I was happy. Since the 30th, this new traffic shaping is much
    worse. My available daily download has dropped from over 2.5 Gibytes
    to around 1.4 Gibytes.

    Apparently Telecom actually sent World-Net a letter saying they would
    be doing "traffic policing" on the 256 kibit/s bitstream ADSL from
    June - this is despite the fact that they had already been doing
    shaping before. And they seem to have jumped the gun by one day in
    starting the new traffic shaping regime. World-Net suggested to me
    that I should move to 1 Mibit/s or 2 Mibit/s, as Telecom does not
    shape those, ignoring that the reason I am on the flat rate 256
    kibit/s account is because I do not want to pay excess volume charges
    or see a decreased speed after 10 Gibytes.
     
    Stephen Worthington, Jul 6, 2005
    #14
  15. On 6 Jul 2005 23:10:20 +1200, "Stephen Worthington"
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:06:08 UTC, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
    ><> wrote:
    >


    >Apparently Telecom actually sent World-Net a letter saying they would
    >be doing "traffic policing" on the 256 kibit/s bitstream ADSL from
    >June - this is despite the fact that they had already been doing
    >shaping before. And they seem to have jumped the gun by one day in
    >starting the new traffic shaping regime. World-Net suggested to me
    >that I should move to 1 Mibit/s or 2 Mibit/s, as Telecom does not
    >shape those, ignoring that the reason I am on the flat rate 256
    >kibit/s account is because I do not want to pay excess volume charges
    >or see a decreased speed after 10 Gibytes.


    I think you and/or they got this wrong.. The "Shaping" they talk about
    is the way telecom do the limiting of the total speed of your
    connection. (ie 256K/128 2M/128 etc). They (Telecom) do do any
    port/layer7 or alike filtering). The way Telecom make your connection
    this way can be done in a few ways. Telecom is changing the way they
    are doing their shaping and this is what the letter (if its the same
    one I've seen) is about.

    I don't know how Worldnet are doing their shaping, Either Port Based
    (ie port 80 is unlimited and everything is slow), or via Layer 7
    (application based) or they don't limit anything at all.

    Thanks
    Craig
     
    Craig Whitmore, Jul 10, 2005
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:

    >Shane wrote:
    >> One of the guys at work is on worldnet and was moaning about the same
    >> thing (Bit trickle) He fixed it somehow ( he didnt say how) it _could_
    >> have been because he set it for port 80?

    >
    >it depends on how the traffic is filtered, but using "non-standard
    >ports" will do it a lot of the time.


    I wonder if this is what will finally drive people to use DNS SRV
    records--to defeat port-based throttling mechanisms?
     
    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, Jul 16, 2005
    #16
  17. On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 07:25:44 +1200, Mark wrote:

    > Are Orcon limiting P2P on the UBS 256 offering?
    > Thanks
    > Mark


    They (god knows if it is Telecom or Orcon) started off with obvious port
    based shaping e.g. web running full speed but others such as nntp running
    around 5 kB/s

    Now someone is doing Layer 7 shaping and Bittorrent for example won't get
    downloads much over 5 kB/s but uploads run full speed.

    I'd be better off on Dial up.
     
    wogers nemesis, Jul 16, 2005
    #17
  18. Mark

    Richard Guest

    wogers nemesis wrote:
    > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 07:25:44 +1200, Mark wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Are Orcon limiting P2P on the UBS 256 offering?
    >>Thanks
    >>Mark

    >
    >
    > They (god knows if it is Telecom or Orcon) started off with obvious port
    > based shaping e.g. web running full speed but others such as nntp running
    > around 5 kB/s
    >
    > Now someone is doing Layer 7 shaping and Bittorrent for example won't get
    > downloads much over 5 kB/s but uploads run full speed.
    >
    > I'd be better off on Dial up.


    Dont tell my torrents that, I have them regually hitting the limit I have set in
    azereus (24 or 28k/sec depending on if im trying to browse at the same time or
    not) - latency has being as good as bitstream will allow for for the last few weeks.
     
    Richard, Jul 16, 2005
    #18
  19. On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:15:37 UTC, wogers nemesis <>
    wrote:

    > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 07:25:44 +1200, Mark wrote:
    >
    > > Are Orcon limiting P2P on the UBS 256 offering?
    > > Thanks
    > > Mark

    >
    > They (god knows if it is Telecom or Orcon) started off with obvious port
    > based shaping e.g. web running full speed but others such as nntp running
    > around 5 kB/s


    Except for port 23 - if the server you were talking to supported
    connections on port 23 you could get full speed.

    > Now someone is doing Layer 7 shaping and Bittorrent for example won't get
    > downloads much over 5 kB/s but uploads run full speed.


    Why do you think it is Layer 7 shaping? It seems to me to be much
    more simple minded than that - just taking account of all traffic to
    international IP addresses.

    > I'd be better off on Dial up.


    I have been having this problem for a while - since the shaping
    changed on 30 June. If I download at full speed on any port to an
    international site, after a while the speed drops to 4-5 kibytes/s and
    stays there. If I download from a local NZ IP address while this
    shaping limit is running, I can use the rest of the bandwidth. The
    only way I have found of getting full international bandwidth back
    again is to stop all my traffic for a while. I have never checked to
    see if you only need to stop the international traffic, due to the way
    I use to stop the traffic, which is just to down my eth0 ethernet
    interface for a few seconds.

    As a result of working this out, I have managed a workaround that gets
    me reasonable throughput - not the 2.7 Gibytes per day I used to get
    from my 256/128 kibits/s, but in the 1.5-2.0 Gibytes per day region.
    What I have done is to write a Rexx script that fetches a web page in
    my Cisco 827 ADSL router. On that page, there is a field that reports
    the total number of bytes downloaded on the connection. I fetch that
    page every 10 s and calculate the 10 s download rate from that
    difference. When that rate is detected to be in the region that
    indicates that the traffic shaping is probably happening, the script
    downs my eth0 interface for a short period, then re-enables it, using
    "ifconfig down" and "ifconfig up" commands. It then delays for a
    little while, to allow the TCP connections to do error recovery and
    the traffic to start flowing again, and then resumes monitoring every
    10 s.

    I am still experimenting with the settings to make this work best -
    these are what I am using at the moment:

    Traffic shaping detection: 10 s rate between 24000 and 65000 bits/s
    Time to down eth0 for: 7 s
    Time to allow for recovery of TCP connections: 10 s

    Note: After the 10 s recovery time, the script also takes another 10 s
    to get the first baseline reading of the downloaded bytes, and then
    another 10 s for its first comparison reading, so it takes 30 s before
    it could again detect traffic shaping and decide to down the eth0
    interface.

    With those settings, it should take at most 30 s (typically 10 or 20
    s) to detect that the shaping has started, and another 20 s before the
    traffic is back to full speed. Of course, how well it works depends
    on how often Telecom decides to start the shaping again, and they seem
    to have changed that around Thursday or Friday to become more
    sensitive - it seems to happen much more often.

    I only run the Rexx script when I am running long term download
    connections that would previously have maxed out the ADSL - if your
    traffic has natural breaks in it, those will turn off the shaping if
    it starts.

    Another thing that I have noticed is that the traffic flow is much
    more variable than it used to be. Previously, I could run just one
    NNTP download thread from news.easynews.com to max out the ADSL
    connection. Now it takes at least two - the instantaneous traffic
    flow can be very variable. I suspect that this is a side effect of
    the traffic shaping somehow.

    For a while I also tried using my internal (software) firewall's
    traffic shaping to limit my own download speed to see if I could stop
    Telecom's traffic shaping from starting, but that was not very
    successful - it only seemed to work if I limited my download speed to
    a cap of 20 kibytes/s, which rather defeated the purpose of the
    exercise. I think that the problem was that it is extremely difficult
    for traffic shaping at the receiving end of a connection to accurately
    control the speed, and hence it was hitting the maximum speed of the
    ADSL connection at times, despite my traffic shaping. Shaping down by
    the ISPs (to knock say 1 kibyte/s off the connection speed) might
    work, as it is much easier to control the shaping from their end,
    before Telecom gets to see the packets.

    The other thing that might work would be for the ISPs to run a tunnel
    connection to a box on their network, so that all the traffic that
    Telecom got to see was the tunnelling packets destined for NZ IP
    addresses at the ISP. Of course, that would require all their users
    to be able to tunnel their packets - not a problem for me, as both my
    software firewall and my Cisco 827 router can do that, but sure to be
    a problem for many customers. The overheads of running the tunnel
    would reduce the available bandwidth a bit, but not nearly as much as
    Telecom's traffic shaping does. The big costs to the ISPs would be
    the tunneling router box(es) which would have to carry the traffic,
    and customer support to get the tunneling to work - unfortunately both
    significant costs.
     
    Stephen Worthington, Jul 17, 2005
    #19
  20. Mark

    Richard Guest

    Stephen Worthington wrote:

    > The other thing that might work would be for the ISPs to run a tunnel
    > connection to a box on their network, so that all the traffic that
    > Telecom got to see was the tunnelling packets destined for NZ IP
    > addresses at the ISP.


    that is basically how UBS works, your PPP is terminated at the ISP, telecom dont
    see what your traffic is destind to.
     
    Richard, Jul 17, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Patrick Cervicek
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    894
    Patrick Cervicek
    Aug 7, 2007
  2. Bottle Boy

    Is orcon limiting p2p bandwidth on UBS?

    Bottle Boy, Feb 21, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    1,018
    Mutlley
    Feb 23, 2005
  3. Mark

    Rant: Orcon and P2P

    Mark, Aug 7, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    663
    Craig Whitmore
    Aug 9, 2005
  4. kevin cosgrove

    Orcon on P2p

    kevin cosgrove, Sep 29, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    446
    ~misfit~
    Oct 1, 2005
  5. ~misfit~

    Orcon P2P gone south again.

    ~misfit~, Dec 18, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    1,297
    ~misfit~
    Jan 15, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page