wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to funchords
Re: Here's Proof: Cox Interferes with P2P Uploads
said by funchords  :]Great question. According to the BEHAVE IETF Working Group, NAT devices should send an ICMP unreachable error and/or drop the packet in that case. In this case, however, the RST is following an exact pattern that repeats. With the SYN long past, and a data packet received less than 100 ms. ago, there's no valid reason a remote peer should generate a reset. This is clearly interference, it matches the Comcast eDonkey interference. Maybe I'm just misremembering, but IIRC sending an RST is the correct behavior when an endpoint receives a TCP packet that appears to be referring to a nonexistent connection.
Specifically, when a TCP packet is received that does not have the SYN or FIN bit set.
We mustn't forget that devices that happen to do NAT are also endpoints in their own right and thus must conform to standard behavior when they receive a packet appearing to belong to a connection that does not exist.
Silent dropping is a common behavior, but is not, strictly speaking, correct. Sending an ICMP port unreachable is the correct response when receiving a packet with the SYN bit set which has a destination port which is not valid for the receiving host.
What will happen (and this is incorrect behavior) if a router running Linux runs out of NAT table space is exactly what you describe. The peer sends packets just fine, but when we send one back, the NAT router sends back an RST because it sees our packet as invalid.
Again, I'm not at all arguing that Cox is not testing some dumb as paint device that does what you claim, I'm just pointing out that the same things can be explained by things that have nothing to do with Cox. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of BT users had that exact problem due to poor NAT devices at the remote end.
What I don't get is why on earth any ISP would use such blatantly idiotic technology when they could just as easily use similar deep packet inspection to mark BT and other bulk traffic as such and use standard QoS to delay (or deprioritize) packets so marked. Doing it that way would achieve the same ends, but in a way that would be completely impossible to prove was actually happening, so long as the mark was removed before the packet exited Cox's network. |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL
·Cox VOIP
| comcast is being sued. is cox next?
If all we will be able to do on or any service is surf the web and check e-mail, then i'm going back to dial up. no need to cough up $50+ dollars for "censored" internet.
Again, they need to stop adverizing "download movies and music at blazing speeds"
-Rob |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
2 edits | reply to jmccorm
Re: [OK] Cox doesn't mess with Bittorrent traffic, does it?
Just FWIW, I can confirm 100% absolutely that something in Cox's network is sending these spurious RST packets. 
I'll report back after I test a few other modes of operation besides my home connection as a server. (which Cox could rightly block, given the TOS forbidding servers)
Can anyone confirm this behavior on Cox's network in the Kansas market? (I have a CBS line in that market, while my line in the Oklahoma market is residential)
Edited to add: They also appear to be doing this intra network. I have a server in San Diego that, among other upstreams, has fiber to CBS. Using that server as a seed to my home network also appears to be generating the same behavior. IMO, that's far more insidious. |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | I usually max out my lines with Azureus. I'm in Wichita.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? |
|
jmccorm
join:2003-08-17
Tulsa, OK
| reply to jmccorm
UPDATE: It looks like Cox has been tweaking their parameters since my initial complaint on Sunday. (Sitting at 0kB/s for very long periods of time.) I am still noticing some interference with my upload stream. But I'm able to reach and mostly sustain up to my self-imposed cap for stretches of a few minutes at a time. (Even if my uploads get to a sputtering start at first.)
Compared to Sunday, it looks like it is now probably operating more with the intent that they were shooting for, which would be to occasionally disrupt off-net upload streams in order to give on-net connections a chance to take hold. My upstream bandwidth gets torn down here and there, by varying amounts and at semi-random intervals (as far as I can tell).
Not that this doesn't still break networking standards. User funchords' definition of 'abuse' covers that well enough. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to wierdo
Re: Here's Proof: Cox Interferes with P2P Uploads
said by wierdo :Maybe I'm just misremembering, but IIRC sending an RST is the correct behavior when an endpoint [including a NAT device] receives a TCP packet that appears to be referring to a nonexistent connection. Well, you'll have to take that up with the BEHAVE Working Group of the IETF.
Meanwhile, the RSTs in this case are definitely not caused by NAT devices, so the matter is academic only.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to jmccorm
Re: [OK] Cox doesn't mess with Bittorrent traffic, does it?
Funny, my tests between my server in SD and my line in Tulsa seem to be showing a 100% inability to act as a seed for either. The route between the two is 100% Cox.
jshort was kind enough to offer his help and we found that I can seed from my CBS line in Arkansas, but not from CBS in San Diego, nor from my residential line in Tulsa. They've apparently not gotten around to installing the filters in the Kansas market yet.
It appears Cox is doing their best to block seeding 100%, even on CBS lines.
Now I'm angry. As I mentioned earlier, seeding from a residential line is, strictly speaking, a contravention of the TOS we all agree to. By contract, I should be able to seed all I want on the CBS lines, but cannot. |
|
ZaRRaZa
join:2005-12-04
Norway
| reply to jmccorm
just want to say... been using cox for 4 years now. I get constant 1.5-2.0 MB/s down and 150-200 KB/s up (at night time reaches 250 KB/s) from private torrents.
Down record for few secs is 2.9 MB/s ... and constant 2.5 MB/s for few minz. And im positive that i went over 60 GB at least once and 15 GB upload a lot. I would say my down record is 100-150 GB a month and about 50GB upload. Never received a letter. So far cox is really nice. The one negative thing is that they need to increase up speeds. That split between down and up is ridiculous (20/2).
cya |
|
Plasticman
Will Work For Bandwidth
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Harrisville, RI
clubs: | An answer to your question if they are interferring:
»Cox Also Disrupting P2P Traffic
Story posted yesterday and they had Robb check it out....
Plasticman |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to ZaRRaZa
said by ZaRRaZa :That split between down and up is ridiculous (20/2) Some of us are only getting 12/1.
with 2 up you must be in a fios area. is fios available to you?
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
|  reply to jmccorm
(update) Cox Manager: Cox Confirms They Use Protocol Filtering
From Cox's David Deliman, Product Communications Manager:
To ensure the best possible online experience for our customers, Cox actively manages network traffic through a variety of methods including traffic prioritization and protocol filtering. Cox does not prohibit the use of file-sharing services for uploads or downloads, or discriminate against any specific services in any way. To help our customers make the most out of their Internet experience, we take proactive measures to ensure that bandwidth intensive applications do not negatively impact their service. These network management practices are outlined in our subscriber agreement and Acceptable Use Policy. »Cox Also Disrupting P2P Traffic
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
ZaRRaZa
join:2005-12-04
Norway
2 edits | reply to dvd536
Re: [OK] Cox doesn't mess with Bittorrent traffic, does it?
i dont know boi... i been tryin to find out that forever with no success... lol
I been usin cox for 4 years, my parents for 6, and i would stay with cox if they would offer more upstream... but now the difference between cox and fios is so huge... that if i'll have a chance to switch to fios... I WILL...
u know its hard to leave cox... cuz i was gettin very good service all the time. Had only 1-2 issues for all the time i been with cox... but u kno they cant keep up with fios. I read somewhere in this forum that cox gonna update up speedz to 4 mbps only by 2010.... thats ridiculous, because by that time fios gonna be offering 1000/1000 or so to home users.... lol.
Only strongest survives... |
|
jmccorm
join:2003-08-17
Tulsa, OK
| reply to funchords
Re: (update) Cox Manager: Cox Confirms They Use Protocol Filteri
PR TRANSLATION FOLLOWS:
Cox actively manages network traffic through a variety of methods including traffic prioritization and protocol filtering. "We do some things. Here are a few examples that I want to throw out there. This isn't the whole list, though."
Cox does not prohibit the use of file-sharing services for uploads or downloads. "We do not outright *stop* (through technology or policy) the use of file-sharing services on our network."
(Cox does not) discriminate against any specific services in any way. ERROR. ERROR. Inconsistency detected. You just got through saying that "Cox actively managers network traffic through a variety of methods including ... protocol filtering." If that isn't discriminating against any specific service, what is?
To help our customers make the most out of their Internet experience, we take proactive measures to ensure that bandwidth intensive applications do not negatively impact their service. "We take proactive measures against bandwidth intensive applications, but we won't go into any detail about what that means." "But we degrade a user's service in order not to negatively impact their service. We have to kill the citizens in order to save them."
These network management practices are outlined in our subscriber agreement and Acceptable Use Policy. "Please refer to this generic document which doesn't answer the question in any more detail." |
|
Movieman420
join:2007-08-28
Rivesville, WV
| reply to jmccorm
Re: [OK] Cox doesn't mess with Bittorrent traffic, does it?
At least they're admitting that they do filter protocols and that's WAY more than Comcast's PR will admit.
No doubt in my mind, Cox will be joining Comcast in the FCC complaints and class action law suits. At least Cox won't be accused of lying to and deceiving their customers. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Good job jmccorm! You've broken their code!  
said by Movieman420 :At least Cox won't be accused of lying to and deceiving their customers. True to a point, but Cox's forging a packet header to make it appear as if your peer has "hung up on you" is still lying and deceiving.
This is arrogance on their part. In 2005, the industry promised the FCC that they wouldn't do stuff like this. In return, the FCC didn't impose Net Neutrality rules on them, saying that there wasn't any evidence that any were needed.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
AnonHRCust
@cox.net
| reply to jmccorm
I'm in Hampton Roads (Virginia Beach) and I can confirm that Cox filters P2P traffic here. I noticed this with eMule a while ago, all the uploads would be killed instantly. I haven't used eMule in probably a year but I guess they're still doing it. BitTorrent seeding is also limited. Sometimes the connection will be killed instantly, other times I will be able to upload for about 30 seconds before the connection dies. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by AnonHRCust :
I'm in Hampton Roads (Virginia Beach) and I can confirm that Cox filters P2P traffic here.
That sounds exactly like Sandvine.
I have had outside requests to gather more evidence. If you are familiar with Wireshark and either Gnutella, ED2K, and BitTorrent and can spend an hour or so with someone on the phone some evening, please write to me at robb(at-sign)funchords.com.
Thanks!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL | Again.. welcome to 1984.
I wonder what will happen when the masses dump cox as a result of this nonsense.
-Rob |
|
MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs:
2 edits | reply to jmccorm
I've given up on BitTorrent, and moved back to usenet. I'm seeing nearly 2MB/sec sustained speeds with usenet on my 12/1mbps Premier connection...better than advertised!
I'm seeing occasional boosts up over 3MB/sec! |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by MarkyD :I've given up on BitTorrent, and moved back to usenet. I'm seeing nearly 2MB/sec sustained speeds with usenet on my 12/1mbps Premier connection...better than advertised! I'm seeing occasional boosts up over 3MB/sec! You obviously aren't using cox's outsourced highwinds crapola if you're getting speeds like that
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
