Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to funchords
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!
said by funchords  :Forging the RSTs is a wrongful act. After you get caught in "The Real World," you don't get to keep committing wrongful acts with impunity until you figure out what else to do. What exactly does "wrongful act" mean?
Is forging TCP RST packets illegal? Possibly, in the context of the FCC's current rules, but that's debatable (and rather unlikely, in my view). More likely, Comcast's methods are legal now, but they want to preempt any further regulation.
Is it inconvenient for some users? Definitely true, although as has been pointed out, there are a wide variety of alternatives out there to accomplish whatever task you want to accomplish (assuming that you care more about getting things done rather than particular means of accomplishing them).
In "The Real World", people do "wrongful" stuff all the time. I had someone cut me off while I was driving to work. Hell, the price I paid for the gas I used to get to work ought to be a crime. If I spent all my time throwing hissy fits on the internet over every way I was "wronged", I'd never get anything done.
Comcast has stated that the reason they started throttling P2P in the first place was to manage the network so that everyone could have a reasonably responsive experience. Now I know there are tons of conspiracy theories out there about other ulterior motives they may have, but the fact that only certain people in certain areas are getting throttled tends to make me think that network management truly is the reason for starting this in the first place.
Just "turning off" a major part of their network management without having some kind of alternate method in place really would be negligent. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :That's true of all of the RFCs. Enforcement is essentially the missing part. Actually, for the worthwhile RFCs the enforcement is quite effective. "Do it this way or your shit won't work"
said by funchords :I love to quote the RFCs (those that are the authoritative "Internet Standards") because that's the instruction manual for developers and implementors. There are actually a couple Internet standards bodies: the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF, who picks and chooses certain RFCs to become standards) and the IEEE being the two largest orgs. The difference between RFCs and IEEE standards is like the difference between books and scientific journals. To publish in a scientific journal you need a certain level of detail, research, and peer review whereas any jackass of the street can write a book.
I'm not knocking RFCs, there's a lot of brilliant ideas published in RFC form, but you have to take them for what they are. Many of the proposals are purposefully left open-ended for interpretation; that's why SHOULD vs MUST becomes a huge point of distinction in many RFCs.
said by funchords :And Comcast didn't know how all P2P apps would respond -- all P2P apps haven't been written yet. If the app doesn't exist, how would Sandvine profile it to be able to take action on it? |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to espaeth
Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted.
Comcast should only prioritize according to approved "Internet Standard" RFCs. Any other behavior is not Network Neutral.
Back in the ...-.- day, the rule was "First In, First Out." No message, except for those of the government, would get precedence.
These days, we do have Standards that allow prioritization, but the en-route transit providers do not have carte blanche to prioritize them any way that they want to.
Edit: strikethrough my obviously overbroad statement
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to espaeth
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!
Any jackass can write an RFC, but it won't make "Internet Standard" level until its been fully vetted.
If the app doesn't exist, how would Sandvine profile it to be able to take action on it? Sandvine attacked the application protocol, so it recognized all BitTorrent applications. However, how one BitTorrent app responds to RST's resulting Winsock error code might be completely different than how another responds. Some apps might try and reestablish contact right away, others might mark the peer as "bad" and blacklist it.
Sandvine's method doesn't (and probably cannot) recognize which app is actually being used to generate the protocol it is attacking, so therefore it cannot predict what the app will do in response to the RST unless that behavior is also described in the protocol. And for BitTorrent, Gnutella, or ED2K, it is not. (I don't know about the others.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. |
|
anooooonnnnn
@dtcc.edu | reply to CableTool
no wonder people on the commercials cry MORE MORE MORE ith comcast. They cut you down when u use more lol and when they cry for more HD its because comcast only has 20-30 actual HD channels that arent just on demand. |
|
Why yes
@verizon.net
| reply to espaeth
Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted.
said by espaeth :Just curious, in your world does the equipment room have a big switch labeled "Internet" that should always remain in the "ON" position? Why Yes it does! Have you seen it too?  |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :Comcast should only prioritize according to approved "Internet Standard" RFCs. Any other behavior is not Network Neutral. That's great, except there are no official standards on how applications should be prioritized. |
|
jt65
@comcast.net
 from:
TKJunkMail
| reply to 33591094
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!
comcast just said a few days ago it would stop. the change is not going to happen over night. just like sixty store building dont get build over night. comcast needs to get a new network management system in place. every company has a network manager system. so to think they will have it done in little than a week is stupid. it show you dont know anything about network management |
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Corydon
said by Corydon :said by funchords :Forging the RSTs is a wrongful act. After you get caught in "The Real World," you don't get to keep committing wrongful acts with impunity until you figure out what else to do. What exactly does "wrongful act" mean? Is forging TCP RST packets illegal? Possibly, in the context of the FCC's current rules, but that's debatable (and rather unlikely, in my view). More likely, Comcast's methods are legal now, but they want to preempt any further regulation. ... In some states where Comcast operates, intercepting private data communicaions is criminally illegal (same thing is applied to hackers as well)
Grabbing your packets and FORGING RST's before passing the packets on sure seems like intercepting to me... Hence they ARE breaking the law in some places. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to espaeth
"Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as cutting in line. "
Since oversimplified examples have been introduced, I'll correct yours:
Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as pulling someone you don't like out of line, punching them in the face and telling them if you see them again you'll do it again.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Do you also take it personally when cell towers become loaded and shrink their coverage area causing you to drop your call? |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Take it personally? Are you sure you are replying the correct thread?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | I'm just saying you're taking the personification of a TCP RST a bit far. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Hardly. Just using the same silly reasoning you did.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Anyuser2
join:2008-03-19
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Noah Vail
Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted.
said by Noah Vail :Non-discriminatory means NO discrimination. That means no prioritizing, throttling, packet forging, packet injection, or anything else. Since you can not make an alteration to the network traffic streams without discrimination (ie:examination and evaluation), Comcast is promising to leave the network traffic fully unaltered. Not really, no. Prioritization absolutely wouldn't be going away, and there's no reason it should be. They certainly aren't promising to leave traffic "fully unaltered". Really, all they've said is that they won't specifically target bittorrent/p2p - odds are they'll be stopping the questionable practice of forging reset packets.
said by Noah Vail :To bring non-discrimination to practice would involve walking across the net-op center floor and powering off the Sandvine equipment. Comcast says it may take up to 9 months to accomplish this. So the Comcast Net-Op manager gets up from his chair. He takes one step. Then he takes another step. He breaths in. He breaths out. Skip 9 months. He reaches out with his right hand, index finger extended.... He depresses the button marked power... And the network upgrade is completed. Network management still needs to be done. Are you familiar at all with Sandvine?.. or is all you know "SANDVINE = BAD!!". Yes, the torrent blocking is questionable, but there's a lot of other things that equipment does and can do. Look into it. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to espaeth
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!
said by espaeth :I'm not knocking RFCs, there's a lot of brilliant ideas published in RFC form, but you have to take them for what they are. And then there are the RFCs that are issued dated April 1 such as 1149 (A Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers) issued in 1990. This one was actually implemented experimentally a few years ago and even had an enhancement RFC issued a few years ago where the datagrams were tunneled via commercial air planes to speed the transmission time. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to Anyuser2
Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted.
said by Anyuser2 :Are you familiar at all with Sandvine?.. or is all you know "SANDVINE = BAD!!". Yes, the torrent blocking is questionable, but there's a lot of other things that equipment does and can do. Look into it. Honest question for you, or Espaeth, or other knowledgeable:
Other than the P2P Policy Enforcement part, does Sandvine's hardware have anything else that is unique and compelling over the competition?
Their stock crash tells me, "No," but this is really not my field.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to RadioDoc
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!
said by RadioDoc :Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as pulling someone you don't like out of line, punching them in the face and telling them if you see them again you'll do it again. No, allow me:
Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as pulling someone you don't like out of line, punching them in the face, and then blaming someone else for the assault.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. |
|
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :And even for the ones that are out there, they did not get it right. Remember that I found this after two months of investigation as to why I couldn't upload anything via Gnutella -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week -- 100% blocked. Their Sandvine "solution" doesn't delay uploads, it blocks them. Comcast's stretched definition of "delay" only works when there multiple copies of all pieces outside of the Comcast.net domain. Comcast, being the 2nd largest ISP in the US, repeatedly prevented a lot of original content from being uploaded. They didn't delay it, they blocked it. I have seen what is most likely Sandvine equipment in
operation on Gnutella and WinMX, where it forces peer
connection resets as soon as someone enters my upload
queue. And sometimes I've seen these people keep trying,
maybe not knowing that they are disconnected in this
manner, thinking perhaps it is the person they are
downloading from that is disconnecting them.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
|
|
madrhino
join:2004-07-03
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as pulling someone you don't like out of line, punching them in the face, and then blaming someone else for the assault. That sums it up rather nicely. |
|
