dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

Yarmouth Port, MA
reply to funchords

Optimize BitTorrent To Outwit Traffic Shaping ISPs

said by funchords:

said by Movieman420:Some clients do not show as a seed to other peers when in superseed mode...wonder if this mode could somehow be modified/used/employed to help 'fool' the sandvine box into thinking your not 'seeding'.
Lazy Bitfield does about the same thing, but I think your suggestion is worth a test.
I tried it both ways today, no joy. But very good thinking on your part!

On a related note, here's something from Wired's HOW-TO Wiki. I am not the original author, but since I provided the last revisions, some displays (like the RSS) have listed me as the author. I don't deserve the credit:

Optimize BitTorrent To Outwit Traffic Shaping ISPs
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report.


A somewhat dark ending in that article...let's just hope the developers of Az and uT are getting busy with something. As the two most popular clients it'd be nice if they came up with a joint strategy together. One can only hope...

Bueller? Bueller?
El Dorado Hills, CA
reply to funchords
Doesn't enabling (forcing) encryption have a similar effect, though? At least until it catches on, this means less peers (both up and down) if you enable and force encryption. Perhaps not as detrimental to the upstream side, but then the downstream side suffers, too.
"The Dude abides."


Hacienda Heights, CA
the major reason to care about seeding is for ratio purposes, and there are two ways to fix that....


Boulder, CO
I'm a little technically challenged. What would I be looking for to see if the rst's are being sent. I have a network sniffer and saw quite a bit of action coming from Comcast and going to the port I have opened for bittorrent. Just not sure what it means exactly and I don't see rst in those.


reply to jig
Thu a vpn or ssh tunnel (works for now at least) ...or spend a little money and get a host for a seed box.


said by Movieman420:

Thu a vpn or ssh tunnel (works for now at least) ...or spend a little money and get a host for a seed box.
Can you give a little more direction, even in the form of a link with info. Several posters above have said they haven't had success with this method (I'm not able to get it working either with SecureIx).



Londonderry, NH
Use PuTTy and a shell to use SSH and tunnel your bittorrent traffic. Info here: »whalesalad.com/2006/08/27/tunnel ··· /#eberth

I recommend checking freeshells.info for shells.

Mountain View, CA
And I recommend talking to your shell provider before doing this. It's considered "rude" to blindly siphon network traffic through a shell host like this, since now you're not only using up large amounts of bandwidth yourself, but on your shell providers' uplink as well.

I can tell you that as a hosting provider that offers SSH, if our users started doing that with their shell accounts, I'd be *livid*.


reply to StuartA67
"What would I be looking for to see if the rst's are being sent. I have a network sniffer and saw quite a bit of action coming from Comcast and going to the port I have opened for bittorrent"

I didn't have my port open, don't use or even have BitTorrent and I saw the same thing you did. Someone posted in reply to me last weekend that I either had someone on my wireless router (sorry, there's no joy there, it's WEP and MAC filtered/restricted for that very reason) and I was seeing P2P afterglow and alas too, not the case. Instead, this was loop back traffic from a specific network router locally affected in conjunction with Comcast's filtering implementation in this area - they cleared it up this past Sunday night and I no longer have any of the issues that I had before. I might also mention that when calling Comcast last weekend, I was told by the 3 folks to whom I spoke that the call center's own network was intermittently degraded or completely down while this work was taking place.

It is no surprise that Comcast (or any other ISP/broadband provider for that matter) would be attempting to throttle excessive bandwidth consumption based on their published TOS and advertised service packages you can purchase. Sorry folks, I can also say that since this all took place, my service is better than it ever has been before - and I am glad.

To the poster who mentioned UDP - good luck. UDP is notoriously unreliable even though it's lighter and quicker and my bet is you'll have the same issues you are now and perhaps worse. Especially on Comcast's network - at least in my area, my employer wanted us use UDP as the default protocol for VPN into their network and I tested it for them from both Cox and Comcast connections. It was so bad (frequent drops, hanging out there in the ether) that the UDP "standard" idea was abandoned after 3 weeks of testing.


Boulder, CO
I just heard (from an undisclosed source) that Comcast is not throttling as much those on the higher speed package (8mbs). Not sure if this is a fact or not but curious to know if others are noticing this distinction.