ISPs kicking routers off internet?

Discussion in 'Home Networking' started by Rob, Jul 18, 2006.

  1. You must have sent a picture of yourself off somewhere. You see, you
    are so damned fat that even just a picture of you strains any lisp's
    bandWIDTH (major emphasis on WIDTH)!!!
    Yes it is pure, unadulterated bullshit that you have sponged off of your
    parents and the welfare system for your entire life as you sit around
    the house. I do mean literally AROUND the house!
    Noone wants or expects your thoughts. Unfortunately, you spew your
    negativity all over usenet anyway.
     
    remote cuntroll, Jul 19, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. That is the first time I've ever heard of that. Any idea how they
    enforce that? Sounds almost as disruptive to tcp connections as that
    stupid belkin router that would intercept random tcp connections to
    port 80 and start an interactive dialog.

    BTW. What is a dns or ntp "connection" and how is it counted?

    -wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang S. Rupprecht, Jul 19, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rob

    Guest Guest

    | back down, the problem went away. The explanation was that
    | by doubling my speed, the errors to the modem increased
    | exponentially. DSL does not care what or how much you

    If speed doubling does not involve new technology to be just as immune
    to noise, then you are basically going to take a greater noise hit.
    As the speed increases, the rate of retransmissions goes up faster
    and at some point the net increase in total capacity goes back down.
    If you are getting 384kb from 768kb service, that does not mean you
    will get 768kb from 1536kb service. You could very well get less
    or even nothing from 1536kb service. I would have hoped the DSL
    technology would adapt to line conditions. But it seems the phone
    execs would rather use this as a means to squeeze more revenue out.


    | downoad, as it is a dedicated line... many of the cable companies
    | are now limiting uploads to a gigabyte a month or whatever.

    I can do twice that over a dialup just during the overnight.

    But the phone company does care about usage, too. While you might have
    dedicated bandwidth up to the DSLAM, it's shared beyond that point with
    everyone on the same DSLAM and maybe on others, too. If 10 customers
    are downloading the latest hit movie release, it could affect everyone
    else.
     
    Guest, Jul 19, 2006
    #43
  4. Most of the developers doing the interesting work (and the ones
    publishing the papers) are all doing it because it pleases them. In
    case you didn't read the papers Jeff cited, the fixes for hiding the
    number of machines behind a NAT tend to also be fixes that harden
    connections against injection/spoofing hacks. Those fixes help anyone
    that is connected to the internet.


    -wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang S. Rupprecht, Jul 19, 2006
    #44
  5. Rob

    Guest Guest

    | Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
    |
    |>
    |>> I wonder what happens if you plug in the 6th computer? Ka-boom?
    |>
    |> Not that it really matters, but I don't think they can really tell how
    |> many computers someone has if it is running a good OS that randomizes
    |> initial sequence numbers,
    |
    | All that's interesting - and no doubt correct - but ISPs _can_ limit the
    | number of connections you can make. Typically browsers are able to make
    | 4-10 connections concurrently. My plan with my ISP doesn't limit the
    | number of computers I use, but _does_ limit me to 10 concurrent
    | connections. Given that I personally could be using 1 for NNTP, 1 for
    | POP/IMAP, 4 for a browser, and my router would be doing (at least) NTP and
    | DNS, there isn't a lot left over for anyone else :)

    Are they running everything through some proxy server? I can see them
    wanting to make a connection limit if all the connections are going via
    their HTTP proxy.

    More likely it's a clueless manager (ever notice how those two words seem
    to always be together) deciding this is a great way to keep the trunk
    circuits from being overloaded.

    I wonder what they would do with SCTP, which is roughly speaking "TCP on
    steroids". If used for HTTP it could provide all the concurrent trafffic
    you need with one web server in a single "connection". It has the ability
    to utilize subchannels.

    No need to google:
    http://tdrwww.exp-math.uni-essen.de/inhalt/forschung/sctp_fb/index.html
    http://tdrwww.exp-math.uni-essen.de/inhalt/forschung/sctp_fb/sctp_api.html
    http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-sctp/?ca=dgr-lnxw01SCTP
    http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~dunigan/netperf/sctp.html
    http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man7/sctp.7.html
    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-12.txt
    http://www.sctp.be/
    http://www.sctp.de/sctp.html
    http://www.sctp.org/
     
    Guest, Jul 19, 2006
    #45
  6. Rob

    Moe Trin Guest

    Wed Jul 19 10:02:46 2006> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:3788 - Windows XP, 2000 SP2+ (NAT!)
    -> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:445 (distance 3, link: (Google/AOL))
    Wed Jul 19 10:02:56 2006> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:3788 - Windows XP/2000 while
    downloading (leak!) -> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:445 (distance 3, link: (Google/AOL))

    Some id10t with his windoze boxen down the street, wanting to share. The
    'Google/AOL' means an MTU of 1400.

    The code detects NAT devices that do not rewrite packets (almost
    all packet firewalls). Ones that do rewrite packets (proxy firewalls)
    can, on the other hand, be detected by their own signatures.

    Masquerade detection will fail if all systems masqueraded have an
    identical configuration and network setup, uptimes and network usage
    (which is very unlikely, even in a homogeneous environment). A
    prerequisite for detection is that the systems are used at (roughly) the
    same time, within the cache time frame.
    I'm not sure why they don't just strip the stupid thing off. It's an
    option, not a requirement. The box doing the NAT can add it back on to
    the returning box. Likewise, the NAT box could timestamp echo any incoming
    stuff as needed. In spite of RFC1323, they're not going to cause the
    Internet to explode if they're faked at the NAT-box.

    Old guy
     
    Moe Trin, Jul 20, 2006
    #46
  7. Rob

    donna Guest

    I had this problem, and it increased in frequency to a few times a
    night, I tried many different fixes, nothing worked, then i just got a
    new modem and the peoblem went away.

    Donna

    Rob wrote:
    ..
     
    donna, Jul 20, 2006
    #47
  8. Rob

    John Navas Guest

    Likewise. Allocates resources efficiently. But I think "fair use"
    throttling is more practical in today's market.
    Not necessarily. Many ISPs (here in the USA at least) keep records of
    the top few percent of consumers of network capacity for a variety of
    reasons:
    * Network protection
    * Interference with other customers
    * Likelihood of unlawful activity
    * Risk of ISP blacklisting
     
    John Navas, Jul 20, 2006
    #48
  9. Maybe. I prefer the pay-per-view model. I would pay monthly for the
    service and the total bytes moved. However, if I need a faster
    connection for a specific ocassion (i.e. Victoria's Secret Fashion
    Show video feed), I should be able to go to the ISP's web pile, and
    order a temporary bandwidth boost. This also solves the problem for
    some of my customers that are only at home perhaps 6 months of the
    year, but are paying flat rate for broadband year round.

    This is fairly easy to do with DOCSIS and Wireless but a total pain
    with DSL thanks to the ISP not being in control of the DSLAM. I dunno
    about satellite.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Jul 20, 2006
    #49
  10. Rob

    John Navas Guest

    One problem is that so much of the traffic is out of your control,
    especially with graphics-heavy web sites that expect you to be on
    unlimited broadband.

    Another common problem is the lack of good usage monitoring -- most
    people don't want unpleasant surprises in their bills.
    Should pretty easy to do with PPPoE -- different connections for
    different speeds.
     
    John Navas, Jul 20, 2006
    #50
  11. Rob

    Alex Fraser Guest

    Even graphics-heavy websites aren't that much traffic compared to downloads,
    are they? Serious question - do you know of any studies?
    I don't see why an ISP that meters usage should have any trouble allowing
    customers to read their meter.

    It may interest you both to know that my ISP (Eclipse, in the UK) provide an
    ADSL service exactly as Jeff Liebermann described. The ADSL link runs at the
    fastest rate the line will manage, with rate limiting (AFAIK) applied by the
    ISP. By visiting the website, you can increase/remove the rate limit for a
    certain period of time at a given cost per hour. This is on top of a flat
    charge according to the "base" rate limit.

    This service is no longer available to new customers, however. I guess the
    idea never caught on, as I am not aware of any other ISPs offering a
    comparable service, but I believe there have been changes in how ISPs are
    charged by the telephone company which may also have influenced the decision
    to withdraw the service.

    Alex
     
    Alex Fraser, Jul 20, 2006
    #51
  12. Rob

    John Navas Guest

    I know from measuring it myself that such websites can easily rack up a
    surprisingly large amount of traffic.
    It's a support nightmare for the ISP dealing with all the "I didn't do
    anything, but my meter went way up!" complaints by unsophisticated
    users. And unhappy customers do not a good business make.
     
    John Navas, Jul 20, 2006
    #52
  13. I think that's intentional. Give them the applications and the
    bandwidth will follow. I'm not sure it's true or even possible, but
    that seems to be the current fashion.
    The same web page used to order more bandwidth will also display the
    running total for the month. That's mandatory for any kind of metered
    system. The customer needs to know their usage.
    Good idea. That will work.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Jul 21, 2006
    #53
  14. Neato. At least they tried. I don't think it makes much sense with
    DSL or DOCSIS where lifting the cap temporarily is more of a luxury
    than a necessity. However, in services where the system capacity is
    severely limited by the backhaul or available shared bandwidth, such
    as wireless networks, cellular networks, and satellite networks, this
    feature can make internet access more bearable. Methinks it might
    have worked had it not been on DSL or DOCSIS cable.

    When I was involved in an 802.11b based wireless ISP, we were going to
    impliment such a system in order to deal with the bandwidth abusers
    while offering "burstable" service to compensate for a draconian rate
    cap. It was never actually deployed.
    Bummer. This is the first and only such user controlled "burstable"
    service that I know of.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Jul 21, 2006
    #54
  15. Rob

    John Navas Guest

    dOn Fri, 21 Jul 2006 06:19:39 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
    I think you're missing some key factors in consumer broadband:

    1. The affordable consumer broadband business model is based on bursty
    traffic, permitting backhaul circuits to be heavily oversold. Consumers
    who max their connections 24x7 (can you say "illicit file sharing"?)
    break that model, raising costs for everyone else.

    2. ISPs also keep costs low by combining download-heavy consumer use
    with upload-heavy hosting use. When consumers engage in heavy uploading
    (can you again say "illicit file sharing"?), that business model breaks
    down.

    3. Worse, upstream congestion of asymmetrical networks can bring
    downstream down to a crawl.

    These are all very good reasons for throttling and/or bandwidth on
    demand.
     
    John Navas, Jul 21, 2006
    #55
  16. Rob

    John Navas Guest

    I don't think it's anywhere near that clever or sophisticated -- I think
    it's simply based on simple assumptions of coolness and all-you-can-eat
    pricing.
    One nasty surprise and the customer may be gone forever, so it actually
    needs to be way better than that, ideally some sort of sophisticated
    on-screen display showing current and projected usage, with clear
    warning levels. Some of the better connection meters can do a fairly
    decent job of that, but they still need to be tightly integrated into
    the Internet connection and fully refined.
     
    John Navas, Jul 21, 2006
    #56
  17. Rob

    Barry OGrady Guest

    You must be very old. Nobody uses feet these days.
    That makes sense.
    Incorrect. DSL is only dedicated to the exchange where it goes into a shared
    line.
    All ISPs have limits on how much you can download before being shaped.
    Some high priced DSL accounts have no limits.
    Barry
    =====
    Home page
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
     
    Barry OGrady, Jul 21, 2006
    #57
  18. Rob

    John Navas Guest

    That's not true in the USA -- DSL services with no limits or shaping are
    common, including offerings by AT&T (SBC) and its resellers (e.g.,
    Sonic.net).
     
    John Navas, Jul 21, 2006
    #58
  19. Eh? around 250 million people use feet as their daily measure of
    length, and probably another 50 million think that way.
     
    Mark McIntyre, Jul 21, 2006
    #59
  20. Rob

    Allan Guest

    He means they use cars.

    Allan
     
    Allan, Jul 21, 2006
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.