Industry Forums > Wireless Service Providers > Limiting Torrent, eMule etc...

Limiting Torrent, eMule etc...

Hmm NetEqualizer?

reply to sarpkaya
There's no support in my country.

reply to sarpkaya
Is that connecting directly backbone line? Is there anybody else who is using that Netequalizer, could send topology of his network?

reply to sarpkaya
You put it inline with your main bandwidth feed now granted dont you have to put it on the same subnet as your customers in order for it to filter correctly?

I dont think you will have good results if you put it in line if you are natting the customers and you put it in between your router and your provider. It should go betweem your router and your customers so it can filter all your Private Ip customers. If you are feeding all public to your customers then that will work as well..

Scratch that I am thinking of a net-enforcer bit et equalizer I always get the two confused.

I am not sure if the net-eq operates the same way or not..
--
ComTrain Certified Tower Climber. American Tower Certified approved contractor. Wireless consultants.

reply to sarpkaya
Can the NetEqualizer handle two separate WANs(providers)?

The NetEq *should* do that but I'm betting you're going to have to put one ethernet feed into the WAN port, joining the feed beforehand. I too am hoping that won't be an issue because I eventually would want multi-homed 'net access for customers (Cogent for bulk data, L3, Qwest or similar for latency sensitive apps).

When you plug in the Neteq box, it doesn't care about IP's or what range it is on. You set the bandwidth maximum limit for whatever your pipe size is and then plug it inline between your core router and your first main switch and you are done.

Superdog, there's also this company called Astaro They do a lot of biz stuff, not packet shaping really (don't like the term but that's basically what NetEq does in a very benign way if you ask me) but all the "all types of restrictions" stuff...

About the whole dual-WAN setup, do you think that setting up BGP ahead of the NetEq between two providers (as I've said I'll probably be getting McBandwidth in a large amount and then some premium stuff to back it up and so people can access certain sites with even lower latency) would allow for a disproportionate dual connection to work? And no I don't know much to anything about BGP yet. It would be something like 100 Mbps on one side and 10-20 on the other, eventually.

And if you're wondering where I'm gonna get the money for 100 Mbps, remember that Cogent will sell it to me for $600 a month And their network doesn't seem too bad either.

I too have a Netequalier unit. Its between my v2 server and my first 5.8Ghz backhhaul AP. I only have a 10Mb feed and thought i would need to be increasing it until I bought this unit. Now I reckon I will be able to handle twice as much subscribers with the same 10Mb feed. It was all the file sharing users whom were doing the harm, not bandwidth wise, but opening up hundreds of connections on each AP thus slowing down the AP and everyone elses connection.
I have to say im happy, it really is just 'Plug & Play'.

reply to sarpkaya
Well I need to pose the obvious question, but doesn't this go against Net Neutrality principles that Comcast is getting slammed for? I mean I know we are all just little guys trying to maximize our cost while preserving our users surfing experience...and lets face it...simply put 90% of torrent traffic is the downloading of illegal copyrighted traffic, but how would throllting this traffic make us any better then Comcast?

Wouldn't it be better just to be honest about torrent traffic and tell customers that pricing is based on standard usage and anything over that usage is subject to additional charges?

Or tell customers that if they are going to be torrent whores to buy a premium service that cost an extra $10-$20.

Food for thought...

No -- the NetEq doesn't look at the content of the packets, only how much bandwidth is being used.

Also, I don't think anyone's going to argue with you if you're simply prioritizing realtime traffic over non-realtime. ust so long as you're agnostic as to who's sending the traffic, not making deals behind people's backs, etc. then I'd have no problem with my ISP letting me surf the web or e-mail or stream at full speed, even if it meant that, when another person was doing the same, I could only get 100 KBs on a torrent instead of 150.

I'd much rather have a NetEq'd open connection than a NATed nonmanaged one, that's for sure. Especially if the NetEqualizer could solve the latency problems that plague some of the nodes on my current provider's network during randome times (it isn't always even peak hours anymore).

reply to sarpkaya
Sarpkaya, you probably won't need any support, but I'm pretty sure the tech guys at NetEqualizer would be willing to help you work through any issues.

And Robbin is right. There's really no reason to criticize equalizing the bandwidth. The only people that might are those that are making it slower for everyone else. The large majority have no idea that the NetEq. is even installed. They just know they are able to go online and work without everything seeming so slow. This does a pretty good job explaining how it all works: »www.netequalizer.com/neteqsetupdemo.php

reply to sarpkaya

Re: Limiting Torrent, eMule etc...

Yes