dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
25
share rss forum feed

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
reply to funchords

Re: Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections

any facts that back up your claim? or do we just take your word on it. something in the line of real facts and not this person told this person type of stuff. salesman lie all the time. and just because you changed to vpn doesnt mean jack. i mean your routing also changed correct?


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

2 recommendations

said by DoYouKnowMe:

A P2P connection requires you to "authorize" someone else to use the service for a potentially unlawful purpose.
No more or less than an Instant Messenger connection does. All things have potentially unlawful purposes. They are not, in and of themselves, unlawful.

said by DoYouKnowMe:

but to physically track EVERY connection and monitor the connection's contents would: a)be an unlawful invasion of privacy, b)cost an enormous amount of money, c)create an undesirable product as all costs would be passed on to the consumer ( even higher monthly charges ) and cause bandwidth availability to drop ( slower speeds ).
Earlier in this same mentioned, you said that you had not researched this. Had you looked into it, you would have found that this technology is available today and is for sale to ISPs. The cost of the technology is offset by lower payments to backbone providers and the ability to delay expansions of capacity. With somewhere around 75% of all internet traffic being P2P, reducing that traffic that exits the network could provide substantial savings.

As for the invasion of privacy aspect, this is a grey area. It may be one reason they have silently implemented Sandvine. It is not good PR to peer into their customer's packets for the purpose of deciding whether or not they will interfere with them.

said by rody_44:

any facts that back up your claim? or do we just take your word on it.
I have already presented facts. Regardless, unless you run your own tests, you'll have to decide whether to take my word on it.

I'm hoping that others will run their own tests. If they don't, I hope the facts that I'm a qualified expert on the subject, posting under my own name, will carry some weight.

said by rody_44:

something in the line of real facts and not this person told this person type of stuff. salesman lie all the time.
I doubt Comcast will let me in to look. The evidence is circumstantial, but the amount is overwhelming.

Sandvine said it has signed a contract with a Tier 1 U.S. service provider ... Sandvine did not identify the company, but it said its new customer has over 5 million residential high-speed Internet subscribers.

Sandvine already counts top U.S. cable provider Comcast Corp among its customers, Barron's said.

said by rody_44:

and just because you changed to vpn doesnt mean jack. i mean your routing also changed correct?
And so did my packet size. I have accounted for the latter with some other testing. For the former, one should need a VPN endpoint that terminates within Comcast at some points other than Hillsboro, OR..

Once you have that, then this testing is not hard. Set up Wireshark and start your P2P client. Using Comcast, Sandvine will start sending TCP packets with the RST flag set. Not using Comcast, you will see very few such packets.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
~ Keeper of the D-Link FAQ ~ Did you Search? ~ More features, Free! Join BBR! ~


Morty7
Premium
join:2004-09-18
Sandvine said it has signed a contract with a Tier 1 U.S. service provider to supply its 10 Gbps Policy Traffic Switch platform.

Comcast is not a Tier 1 provider. In fact, the there are only two Tier 1's on that possible list, Vz and ATT. My hunch is with ATT.

Your other article states:

"Sandvine Corp. (SVC.TO: Quote, Profile , Research) could see a boost in demand for their technologies, which could be used to give services such as Web video or voice priority over less urgent Internet traffic, according to Barron's April 9 edition." and then goes on to state "Sandvine already counts top U.S. cable provider Comcast Corp among its customers, Barron's said."


CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12
And we all know Comcast prioritizes its Voice packets. None of which have anything to do with DE prioritizing torrent traffic.
--
CableFAQ.org/Technicians Unplugged


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

2 edits
reply to Morty7
said by Morty7:

Sandvine said it has signed a contract with a Tier 1 U.S. service provider to supply its 10 Gbps Policy Traffic Switch platform.

Comcast is not a Tier 1 provider. In fact, the there are only two Tier 1's on that possible list, Vz and ATT. My hunch is with ATT.
Then argue that point with Sandvine. Read the linked article more closely. You'll find that they were the guys that mentioned Comcast in their (rather silly) PR release.

I'm a little lost as to what you're arguing, here. Do you think Sandvine is not installed at Comcast?

If Sandvine were not installed on Comcast, and the RST-flagged packets I received were coming from other networks, then the VPN statistics and the Comcast statistics would be similar. They're not. They're very different.

--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
~ Keeper of the D-Link FAQ ~ Did you Search? ~ More features, Free! Join BBR! ~


Morty7
Premium
join:2004-09-18
Then read what I posted more carefully, that news release isn't about Comcast. It states their new subscriber is a tier 1 ISP, Comcast and TW are Tier 2 ISPs, that leaves you with Vz and ATT. The other news release that mentions Comcast as an existing subscriber (which pretty much every telcom equipment company falls under at some point) doesn't state anything about the service in which you are talking about. While it's all nice to speculate and try and stir stuff up, this is an internet help forum. Maybe you want to also post this in the Comcast.net forums to see if you get an actual answer from Comcast about it?


jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR

1 recommendation

said by Morty7:

While it's all nice to speculate and try and stir stuff up, this is an internet help forum. Maybe you want to also post this in the Comcast.net forums to see if you get an actual answer from Comcast about it?
Actually it says at the very top of this forum:
quote:
The Comcast forum is for discussions about Comcast's cable internet service; its use, availability, features, customer service issues and general information.

Sounds like an appropriate discussion to me.


Morty7
Premium
join:2004-09-18
The issue is you can't really have a great discussion over something that is 100% speculated. If it was known that Comcast actually uses this product, for the reasons stated in the op's thread, then I can see why it would be useful. But at the current time, without more information it isn't very useful. With my recommendation, you'd at least get an answer from Comcast, and from there an actual, informed discussion of the subject could take place. I stated that it was a help forum, and thank you for posting what I said in different words (the ones it says at the top), informed "discussions" into things relating to Comcast's HSI and CDV are helpful, ones filled with "he said, she said" are not.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 recommendation

Joe,

You still have me lost. What is your concern, again? I told you what the tests were, I told you what the results were. It is observable!

Do you think that the forums at Comcast.net is a placed to have an informed discussion about this? If you do, then I understand why I am lost.

Why on Earth would I discuss an issue that I want brought into the light on a Comcast-controlled forum? The users on those forums are not informed. I'm not asking whether Comcast is filtering -- it is a fact. I've demonstrated it, published my methods and my results, and you can reproduce it.

My objectives are this:

1. To end the secrecy around this project

2. To explain a phenomena that others users may be experiencing

That's it. I'm not stirring anything up. Facts and evidence have no agenda. I've added my opinion -- quite separately from the facts. But, as the "stir machine" goes, my opinion on the matter is relatively tame.

Now, instead of repeating what you've said, do you have anything to add?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
~ Keeper of the D-Link FAQ ~ Did you Search? ~ More features, Free! Join BBR! ~


Morty7
Premium
join:2004-09-18
There are no facts posted. Just because you believe it does not make it a fact. Your articles contradict each other, and the other states nothing about the described product in question from this vendor. I did not suggest having the discussion in that forum, I suggested asking for an answer in that forum as to whether or not they actually use it. If they say they do, then sure you can actually have a discussion over it.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

1 recommendation

reply to Morty7
said by Morty7:

Sandvine said it has signed a contract with a Tier 1 U.S. service provider to supply its 10 Gbps Policy Traffic Switch platform.

Comcast is not a Tier 1 provider. In fact, the there are only two Tier 1's on that possible list, Vz and ATT. My hunch is with ATT.
That would be worrisome. Not that it, necessarily would involve me directly; the tier 1 AT&T backbone is part of AT&T Worldnet services, and my routing generally doesn't touch that backbone:
05/13/07 23:19:05 Slow traceroute 74.208.13.161
Trace 74.208.13.161 ...
192.168.102.1 RTT: 1ms TTL:170 (chihiro.aosake.net ok)
192.168.0.1 RTT: 2ms TTL:170 (suzuka.aosake.net ok)
69.105.119.254 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (adsl-69-105-119-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ok)
64.164.97.67 RTT: 11ms TTL:170 (dist2-vlan50.pltn13.pbi.net ok)
151.164.93.239 RTT: 15ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
151.164.94.47 RTT: 13ms TTL:170 (ex2-p12-0.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net ok)
151.164.248.250 RTT: 11ms TTL:170 (as174.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net ok)
154.54.6.85 RTT: 12ms TTL:170 (t3-1.mpd01.sjc03.atlas.cogentco.com probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
154.54.6.81 RTT: 12ms TTL:170 (v3490.mpd01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
154.54.2.53 RTT: 59ms TTL:170 (t7-1.mpd02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
154.54.6.41 RTT: 61ms TTL:170 (t2-2.mpd01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
154.54.2.217 RTT: 61ms TTL:170 (g11-0-0.core01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
66.28.6.238 RTT: 60ms TTL:170 (g0-2.na21.b005948-0.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
38.112.2.194 RTT: 70ms TTL:170 (schlund-partner.demarc.cogentco.com probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
74.208.1.65 RTT: 60ms TTL:170 (te-1-1.bb-a.slr.lxa.us.oneandone.net ok)
74.208.1.102 RTT: 60ms TTL:170 (te-1-2.gw-distp-b.slr.lxa.oneandone.net ok)
74.208.1.168 RTT: 62ms TTL:170 (ae-1.gw-prtr-r5-b.slr.lxa.oneandone.net ok)
74.208.13.161 RTT: 78ms TTL: 51 (server.elitebusinesschoice.com ok)
...unless I am pushing/pulling packets where Comcast is at the far end:
05/13/07 23:17:54 Slow traceroute 68.34.175.134
Trace 68.34.175.134 ...
192.168.102.1 RTT: 1ms TTL:170 (chihiro.aosake.net ok)
192.168.0.1 RTT: 3ms TTL:170 (suzuka.aosake.net ok)
69.105.119.254 RTT: 11ms TTL:170 (adsl-69-105-119-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ok)
64.164.97.66 RTT: 11ms TTL:170 (dist1-vlan50.pltn13.pbi.net ok)
151.164.93.231 RTT: 11ms TTL:170 (bb1-g15-0.pltnca.sbcglobal.net ok)
151.164.191.201 RTT: 12ms TTL:170 (ex1-p9-0.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net ok)
12.122.79.101 RTT: 15ms TTL:170 (gar7.sffca.ip.att.net fraudulent rDNS)
12.122.85.142 RTT: 88ms TTL:170 (tbr2033101.sffca.ip.att.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
12.122.10.41 RTT: 88ms TTL:170 (tbr1.sl9mo.ip.att.net fraudulent rDNS)
12.122.10.29 RTT: 87ms TTL:170 (tbr1.wswdc.ip.att.net fraudulent rDNS)
12.122.2.86 RTT: 84ms TTL:170 (tbr2.phlpa.ip.att.net fraudulent rDNS)
12.123.137.213 RTT: 81ms TTL:170 (gar3.phlpa.ip.att.net fraudulent rDNS)
12.118.114.14 RTT: 105ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
68.86.211.9 RTT: 124ms TTL:170 (te-7-1-ar01.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net ok)
68.86.208.26 RTT: 115ms TTL:170 (po-10-ar01.wallingford.pa.panjde.comcast.net ok)
68.86.211.146 RTT: 120ms TTL:170 (po-92-ur01.claymont.de.panjde.comcast.net ok)
68.86.209.98 RTT: 86ms TTL:170 (po-10-ur01.norristown.pa.panjde.comcast.net ok)
68.86.209.102 RTT: 87ms TTL:170 (po-10-ur02.norristown.pa.panjde.comcast.net ok)
68.86.209.169 RTT: 122ms TTL:170 (po-90-ur01.plymouthmtng.pa.panjde.comcast.net ok)
* * * failed
68.34.175.134 RTT: 98ms TTL:109 (c-68-34-175-134.hsd1.pa.comcast.net ok)
But, back before SBC bought them, AT&T set up NSA listening rooms. And, when the company now called, "AT&T", was known as "SBC", CEO Ed Whitacre started making noise about Google getting a "free ride" on "his pipes"; as if it wasn't his customers sending HTTP GET requests down "his pipes" to Google.

This bids fair to become a "Net Neutrality" issue. I can see big money in Hollywood, and political pressure applied to use Sandvine (and Ellacoya) to eliminate the freewheeling nature of the Internet.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

tdumaine
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Seattle, WA
Wheres the line when it becomes illegal? If i alter packets going to someones computer, im doing so unauthorized and am in trouble, am i not?


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by tdumaine:

Wheres the line when it becomes illegal?
AFAIK, there is no such line under the law, just an ages old Internet tradition codified in the RFCs. To the extent that the RFCs amount to anything akin to a code.
If i alter packets going to someones computer, im doing so unauthorized and am in trouble, am i not?
Probably in violation of one, or another RFC, but not of any law that I am aware of. I am pretty sure that this service would not be offered if it was illegal to alter packets in transit.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum