ISPs kicking routers off internet?

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.

Reply to
remote cuntroll
Loading thread data ...

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

Reply to
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht

| 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.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

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

Reply to
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht

In alt.internet.wireless Derek Broughton wrote: | Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: | |> |> Jeff Liebermann writes: |>> 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:

formatting link

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

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

Reply to
Moe Trin

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: .

Reply to
donna

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:17:15 GMT, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

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
Reply to
John Navas

John Navas hath wroth:

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.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:01:31 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

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.

Reply to
John Navas

[snip]

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

Reply to
Alex Fraser

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:10:32 +0100, "Alex Fraser" wrote in :

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.

Reply to
John Navas

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.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

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.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

dOn Fri, 21 Jul 2006 06:19:39 GMT, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

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.

Reply to
John Navas

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 06:11:48 GMT, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

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.

Reply to
John Navas

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

formatting link

Reply to
Barry OGrady

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:44:52 +1000, Barry OGrady wrote in :

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).

Reply to
John Navas

Eh? around 250 million people use feet as their daily measure of length, and probably another 50 million think that way.

Reply to
Mark McIntyre

He means they use cars.

Allan

Reply to
Allan

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.