dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
uniqs
24
share rss forum feed


koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23
reply to ender7074

Re: Dont think so

said by ender7074:

How about you ISPs just concentrate on giving everyone a fast and reliable connection. That alone seems to be a pretty big task for you. Just concentrate on that. It's not your job to filter packets.
I don't mean to dissect your wording, but, re: filtering packets:

At least let people opt-out of certain filtering mechanisms. For example, I'm fine with ISPs filtering TCP/UDP 137-139, 445, etc. (SMB/CIFS sharing) for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, I have *major* qualms over Comcast injecting falsified/spoofed TCP RST into existing TCP streams as a form of rate-limiting. I don't care if it's being done on BitTorrent traffic or *all* TCP traffic -- it's a bad idea, for a lot of reasons.

I'd love to know who this "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" caters to, because it definitely doesn't to the average customer/consumer.


halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
Reviews:
·Comcast
You can have any two of the three choices below:
A) More bandwidth to support p2p
B) No filtering or throttling.
C) No add on costs to rates to support p2p use.

Someone has to make a choice here, who is it going to be?
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812


koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23
said by halfband:

You can have any two of the three choices below:
A) More bandwidth to support p2p
B) No filtering or throttling.
C) No add on costs to rates to support p2p use.

Someone has to make a choice here, who is it going to be?
Simple: A and B.

I have no qualms paying a little bit more for something that's less "tainted", but Comcast doesn't work that way. They're applying said TCP injection to all customers, not those who are paying less.

So what exactly is your point?

I pay US$70.20/month just for Internet access. This is by no means affordable for lower or lower-middle class. Admittedly broadband should be US$20-30/month, tops -- and regardless of how much you pay, you should be getting a clean, manipulation-free connection.


halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
Reviews:
·Comcast

2 edits
said by koitsu:

I have no qualms paying a little bit more for something that's less "tainted", but Comcast doesn't work that way. They're applying said TCP injection to all customers, not those who are paying less.

So what exactly is your point?
You want A and B, you can get it, but it is a business class connection. Unfortunately, it is not a "little bit more" it is a lot more.
My point is there are tradeoffs, every choice impacts some other aspect of the system. It is very hard to do something that wins on all fronts.

You actually make an argument for comcast or other isps to develop a p2p friendly tier that supports more, un-filtered upload, but does not have the other costs associated with business level service. Probably would still be expensive, but not the obscene numbers for high reliability business class service.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812


jonnyb

join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH
reply to koitsu
said by koitsu:

said by ender7074:

How about you ISPs just concentrate on giving everyone a fast and reliable connection. That alone seems to be a pretty big task for you. Just concentrate on that. It's not your job to filter packets.
I don't mean to dissect your wording, but, re: filtering packets:

At least let people opt-out of certain filtering mechanisms. For example, I'm fine with ISPs filtering TCP/UDP 137-139, 445, etc. (SMB/CIFS sharing) for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, I have *major* qualms over Comcast injecting falsified/spoofed TCP RST into existing TCP streams as a form of rate-limiting. I don't care if it's being done on BitTorrent traffic or *all* TCP traffic -- it's a bad idea, for a lot of reasons.

I'd love to know who this "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" caters to, because it definitely doesn't to the average customer/consumer.
I dont know what the problem is sir they are saying that they are wiling to work with the p2p issues as long as it is being used for legal uses so why is that an issue are you using it for something other than that, and if you are then good you deserve to be throttled.


koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23

1 recommendation

reply to halfband
said by halfband:

You want A and B, you can get it, but it is a business class connection. Unfortunately, it is not a "little bit more" it is a lot more.
Ahh, this discussion. I go through this about once a year with someone, and it always results in the same thing: lack of acceptance.

Here's a dose of reality, from someone who works solely with "business-class" tiers (read: backbone providers such as Abovenet, Level 3, Verizon/MCI, AT&T, Telia, InterNAP, and others, a.k.a. the "big boys" who all ISPs peer with). (I'm sure espaeth See Profile will come out of the woodwork and spank me though...)

There's only two differences between a "business-class" connection and a consumer/residential connection: an SLA, and (sometimes) prior notice of maintenances.

Nothing stops your circuit (in the case of cable, your coax or related CMTS) from going down because you have a "business-class" connection. You aren't on a physically separate network. Technicians do not treat network repair any differently depending upon what "class" of customer you are. Support representatives still continue to have absolutely no clue about their own scheduled maintenances, their own downtimes, or their own outages. You go through the same rigmarole as residential users do, just talking to different people. You get the same overall cluelessness in most cases, though.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that consumer-class connections are actually better in some regards, because:

1) When there's a problem (such as TCP RST injection!), there's a significantly larger percentage of the populous who notice and complain,
2) When there's a major outage that lasts multiple hours, consumers (given the choice) will change providers. You can't do this with a business-class connection, due to contractual obligations.

The amusing part is that with commerical-grade connections, there's a significantly smaller customer base. This means chances are the customer won't notice a 30 second blip as a technician cleans some fibre.

The SLA will get you nothing more than your account representative telling you "We're sorry for the interruption in service, but it falls within our 99.5% uptime, so thanks for playing", which ultimately makes you wonder what you're really paying for.

It really isn't that much different when you have a larger pipe (e.g. a residential cable connection compared to a full OC12). It's the same bull**** regardless. Believe me, I deal with this on a daily basis!

The only time a business-class connection proves to be useful is when the provider you're getting service from provides you a direct circuit from the A to Z end, and owns the actual copper or transport medium inbetween. In that case, you can usually get someone clueful, because there's less red tape to deal with.

A real-life example would be Abovenet, who actually leases some of their backbone fibre from Level 3. Level 3 gets their fibre from OnFiber. OnFiber performs maintenance one night, and mucks something up. Level 3 "might" notice, but probably doesn't care because OnFibre told them of the maintenance. But Abovenet has no idea what's going on...

If you call Abovenet during this situation and ask "What's the deal? We pay for an OC48, and right now our SONET link to your is dark." Abovenet will spend a few hours figuring out that the circuit actually rides a Level 3-owned pair, and will contact Level 3, who will tell them "Uh, we... hmm... we'll get back to you". OnFiber finishes up their maintenance, Level 3 is happy, and suddenly the OC48 comes up. Abovenet will then call you and ask "Are you still down?" "No, but we want to know what happened anyways" "Right, uh, we'll get you an RFO in a few days..." The RFO will come, and it'll say there was a service interruption caused by "vendor maintenance".

This situation will continue to repeat itself indefinitely, and nothing ever changes. That's how the real world works, believe it or not. It's depressing, because the core of the problem is that no one cares enough to make it right.

My point is there are tradeoffs, every choice impacts some other aspect of the system. It is very hard to do something that wins on all fronts.
In that regard, I agree. Yes, there has to be trade-offs. But you must keep in mind that DSLR/BBR consists of broadband-centric visitors: people who want the Internet and ISPs to be up 24x7x365, and expect honest, reliable service. Injecting TCP RST into customers' TCP sessions based on whatever Comcast deems necessary at that moment in time is in no way honest or reliable. Thus, DSLR/BBR people bitch more, and bitch louder.

That said, it would do Comcast well to consider changing their method of throttling. Even though I pay US$70/month, I have no real qualms with throttling. I have qualms with the *method* Comcast is using. If they used packet loss or delayed RTT as a form of rate-limiting (which is common), I would be significantly happier. But falsifying packets? NO. This is not acceptable.

You actually make an argument for comcast or other isps to develop a p2p friendly tier that support more, un-filtered upload, but does not have the other costs associated with business level service. Probably would still be expensive, but not the obscene numbers for high reliability business class service.
This sounds somewhat "buzzwordish", and thus I don't understand what you said fully. I think you're referring to Comcast's recent move to work with the BitTorrent folks, hoping to keep the network traffic off their Internet-bound links and local between customers.

I FULLY support that, and I encourage it. I think it's a much better solution to the bandwidth problem, allowing Comcast to keep traffic off their Internet-bound links and local between cable customers.

All I want to see stopped is the current method of falsified TCP packet injection.


koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23

1 recommendation

reply to jonnyb
said by jonnyb:

I dont know what the problem is sir they are saying that they are wiling to work with the p2p issues as long as it is being used for legal uses so why is that an issue are you using it for something other than that, and if you are then good you deserve to be throttled.

--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.


jt44

@comcast.net
reply to koitsu
you dont like it because then you cant download song for free anymore. stop braking the law and pay for the music and videos you wants.


phattieg

join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
reply to koitsu
I have not noticed a single problem with torrent files I receive or send to folks on the network myself. I have been trying to catch this problem in the act, but maybe since I only download a torrent about once or twice a week, and they are about 2 gigs worth of info, I guess I am not being looked at. Or perhaps the 240 gigs of data that I don't really share because I don't want to be stupid and have the **AA's at me might be the reason. I don't know, what I DO know is I don't have any issues using BitTorrent clients. And you know, I have been an Azureus user for years, opting for that over BitTorrent because I like the interface better... Maybe thats why I don't have a problem, because they have some plugin that is suppose to work around it. Well, wait, no, this topic has been going on for a long time, but yet I have only recently got that plugin, so thats not it. And Ethereal on both my Linux box and my Windows machine are not showing RST packets. Sorry for you guys and your luck, maybe you have more traffic than me... Oh well, good luck
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1.


phattieg

join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
reply to jt44
said by jt44 :

you dont like it because then you cant download song for free anymore. stop braking the law and pay for the music and videos you wants.
braking.... In a sentence...

I was braking real hard to avoid hitting the pedestrian.

breaking... In a sentence...

I feel like breaking your neck, but I would be breaking the law if I did that.

Gets them everytime, just like then, than, they're, there, their, etc... Sorry reading wasn't a favorite in school...
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1.


fonzbear2000
Premium
join:2005-08-09
Saint Paul, MN
reply to jt44
said by jt44 :

you dont like it because then you cant download song for free anymore. stop braking the law and pay for the music and videos you wants.
Tell the RIAA to stop being so greedy and lower prices and I'll stop getting free music.
--
I wish qwest would die! I want FIOS!


koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23
reply to phattieg
said by phattieg:

I have not noticed a single problem with torrent files I receive or send to folks on the network myself.
I can't reproduce it here (in the Bay Area) either, and I've spent quite a bit of time looking at layer 2-7 packets coming in off the wire.

All this means is that Comcast doesn't have a Sandvine configured for use, or possibly even deployed, in our areas. Nothing's stopping them from doing that, however, which is why I'm so concerned. ISPs being silent about such things doesn't sit well with me...