how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Syian
join:2007-12-20
Gwinn, MI | reply to TraumaJunkie
Re: I Wonder How My Parents Will Be Affected ...okay, lets pretend for just one moment that i'm some douchebag computer cracker. i start trolling the net for less than well protected computers to add to my zombienet. i start sending packets at their computer/router, c. Ta. Da. transfer is being used up. their computer doesn't even have to RESPOND for me to be using their transfer.
lets say, for instance, in another example, you're playing some multiplayer game (doesn't even really matter which one.) and you irritate some codekiddy. TA DA. you are getting pingflooded. there goes your transfer totals skyrocketing.
imagine you host a website on your business account (Because memory serving those have caps too...which makes sense i suppose) aaaand a group of code kiddies decide to DDoS your site. well, suddenly your site goes down to snailspeed anyway, AND you get BONUS CHARGES for exceeding your bandwith.
these are the first three examples that come to mind as to how your idea is made of FAIL.
no offense meant, but, this is why i dislike the idea of transfer caps. you have NO way to prevent people from pushing info down your pipe at you, which counts towards your transfer caps. I can think of but one way to prevent this, and i dislike that idea, because i'm one of those people who's computer has about a 50% chance to start from cold boot on any given day (once it's up it's rock solid..it's just that it really does NOT like starting cold).
on another more relevant topic, merry christmas 
--
--
i used to belive in people.
then i worked in telcom.
it burned out my naivety | |
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Just how big is an ICMP packet? How many ICMP responses would it take to use up your "bandwidth allotment"? I suspect that an ping flood would kill your IP connection long before it put your bandwidth consumption over the limit.
Oh, and I do concur with your final sentiment...
Felice Navidad
Fröhliche Weihnachten
メリ-クリスマス
All of which says, "Merry Christmas".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
 bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL | reply to Syian
This, my friends, is why I don't like caps. There is no control. Even if a packet is denied at the firewall, it still uses transfer to get there so it can be denied. | | |
|
 pfakBow before me for I am rootPremium
join:2002-12-29
Vancouver, BC
·TELUS
 ·Shaw
| reply to NormanS
FYI -
Just because you're not responding to a packet, doesn't mean it doesn't get counted. Even if your connection is so saturated that you can't respond with ACK's, the CMTS or equivalent will still be counting your traffic.
..
--
Xenophase - Vancouver's premier online gaming community. | |
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
3 edits | said by pfak:FYI - Just because you're not responding to a packet, doesn't mean it doesn't get counted. Even if your connection is so saturated that you can't respond with ACK's, the CMTS or equivalent will still be counting your traffic. Again, are ACK packets so large that they would tip your bandwidth use over a limit?
We are not talking two-hour feature films, one-hour TV shows, or 30-minute episodes of fansubbed anime, here; or even 5-minute music clips. Just simple ACK packets; what is that? Less than 64 Bytes per ACK?
If your download bandwidth is reasonable, a score, or four, of ACKs won't change things. Only if you are already pushing the envelope would they be a factor.
P.S. Probably another reason I don't think I'd be happy with Comcast. Even discounting their prohibition on running a mail server (I am "barracks lawyer" enough that I would challenge their Terms of Use vebiage, anyway); with 90% of the attempts to deliver email to my MTA being rejected, I am sending a lot of packets that would count against my cap.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
pfakBow before me for I am rootPremium
join:2002-12-29
Vancouver, BC | We were talking about a ping flood here, weren't we? Most ISPs count both your incoming and outgoing bandwidth. | |
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | And, again, I say that a ping flood of such proportions as to bring you to an bandwidth cap will swamp your connection to uselessness long before your ISP notices that you are exceeding their BW limit. You will have called them to find out what is wrong with your connection long before they threaten to cut you off for "abuse". And, if they are going to hold you responsible for abusing their bandwidth over a ping flood, you didn't need them for service, anyway (not to mention the probability that you could sue them for damages, if they cut you off for activity not caused by your actions).
P.S. What is the relationship of ICMP packets to ACK packets?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
Syian
join:2007-12-20
Gwinn, MI | said by NormanS:And, again, I say that a ping flood of such proportions as to bring you to an bandwidth cap will swamp your connection to uselessness long before your ISP notices that you are exceeding their BW limit. lets see, a ping-flood uses 32byte packages, and the bandwith caps i see being floated around most often on here are around 100GB/150GB per month, so we'll use that for a reference.
32 ping packets in a KB, to start with. now, this isn't much, but, regardless, there is not limit to simultaneous packets being sent to a single location.
the problem with by the byte billing that i have lies more in the "where are the bytes i'm being billed for get counted?".
because, all it would really take to completely bone someone is a small zombie-net (easily achieved with "code box" code-kiddy tools these days.) of around 10 computers with 10-15 open instances of ping -f running each. point them all at one computer. that's 15 packets per computer per second.
right there you're talking 150kb/s. 8.7MB/minute. or, a week or so before you hit a 100GiB cap. (which is most likely what the ISP uses for cap totals rather than binary GB. because x/1000 is easier than x/1024) a normal user is not going to notice this sort of load on their downstream, are they?
and, on top of this, depending on where your $/byte is billed, you may get charged for these packets even if they don't get to your machine.
wanna make things even funnier with this thought experiment? make sure that ALL of the zombie net machines are on the same ISP's network. now everyone's getting wierd bills.
(i apologize if my math is off, but 1)i'm really tired. 2)i'm really tired, and 2)i'm working in telcom, and did i mention that i'm really really tired)
--
--
i used to belive in people.
then i worked in telcom.
it burned out my naivety | |
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Syian:the problem with by the byte billing that i have lies more in the "where are the bytes i'm being billed for get counted?". Wait a minute? Billing by the byte? When did that become an issue? Comcast does not bill by the byte; for that matter, I am pretty sure that Insight does not, either. Flat rate billing is the norm for the U.S.A., unlike some foreign ISPs.
Billing by the byte is different from the invisible bandwidth cap afflicting Comcast users.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
