|
Hopefully they won't block VPN access nowBell Canada has already wielded a big sword against P2P on wholesale providers' access. Who's to say they won't do the same for VPN access? | |
|
| |
Re: Hopefully they won't block VPN access nowWouldn't that screw the legit users of VPN (businesses, etc.)? | |
|
| | |
Re: Hopefully they won't block VPN access nowsaid by Anomaly95:Wouldn't that screw the legit users of VPN (businesses, etc.)? Since when did that little detail bother Sympatico/ Bell? | |
|
| | |
Bellundo to Anomaly95
Anon
2008-Jul-9 11:48 am
to Anomaly95
We're talking about Bell Canada they could care less about any legitimate user who uses VPN. As a matter of fact Bell speed throttles all their business customers down to 30 kilobytes per second just like all their residential customers. | |
|
| PhilRojo Sol Premium Member join:2001-06-11 Downers Grove, IL |
to DaSneaky1D
They should charge extra for certain ports, VPN included. This in addition to overage charges on low monthly caps sounds like a winning strategy to not spend money on infrastructure and please the customer base. | |
|
| | 1 edit |
Re: Hopefully they won't block VPN access nowsaid by Phil:They should charge extra for certain ports, VPN included. This in addition to overage charges on low monthly caps sounds like a winning strategy to not spend money on infrastructure and please the customer base. I hope you're being sarcastic. That in no way would "please the customer base." When I pay for Internet access, I expect all outgoing/incoming ports (except incoming on port 80 and outgoing on port 25) to be wide open with no throttling. | |
|
| | | PhilRojo Sol Premium Member join:2001-06-11 Downers Grove, IL |
Phil
Premium Member
2008-Jul-8 4:30 pm
Re: Hopefully they won't block VPN access nowYes, I was being quite sarcastic. | |
|
| | | steve1515 Premium Member join:2000-08-07 Peabody, MA 1 edit |
to Uncomm0n
said by Uncomm0n:... When I pay for Internet access, I expect all outgoing/incoming ports (except incoming on port 80 and outgoing on port 25) to be wide open with no throttling. I really hate to see comments like this. I don't really find it acceptable that any ports are blocked. People shouldn't be OK with this. When I pay for Internet access, I expect all outgoing/incoming ports to be wide open with no throttling. | |
|
| | | | |
Froggy
Anon
2008-Jul-9 12:46 pm
Re: Hopefully they won't block VPN access nowYou'd love rogers cable internet up in Canada. Almost all the ports are blocked. | |
|
| | | | quanta Premium Member join:2002-05-07 Toronto, ON |
to steve1515
Well, you'd want some restrictions on 25 to mitigate spam relaying.
As for port 80...technically web servers are not allowed although Bell adopts a "don't ask/don't tell" policy. | |
|
Gerk join:2008-07-02 Oakville, ON |
Gerk
Member
2008-Jul-8 3:34 pm
This is old news and doesn't work hereNot sure if it's working for your network segments, but in the Toronto area this hasn't worked for a long while now. Also they are using DPI on ALL ports, all types of traffic, all encrypted traffic here, including VPN is throttled even through other ISPs (this is the whole point of the CAIP CRTC complaint).
VPN, scp, sftp have all but stopped here as well. I really really hope that the CRTC can do something about this. | |
|
| |
Re: This is old news and doesn't work heresaid by Gerk:Also they are using DPI on ALL ports, all types of traffic, all encrypted traffic here, including VPN is throttled even through other ISPs (this is the whole point of the CAIP CRTC complaint). If you use standard VPN protocols (L2TP and PPTP) on standard ports it works fine. | |
|
| |
to Gerk
Yeah, DPI doesn't care about ports. DPI looks at every packet, regardless of port and determines what is in the packet and then categorizes it. That is why it's called, DPI, Deep Packet Inspection.
If Bell Canada's DPI is fooled by a port, then it's not that much of a DPI product. If you set a webserver to VPN ports, DPI would easily still be able to tell that it's a webserver. Just like it should be able to see that BitTorrent or any other P2P application has moved to another port. | |
|
| | |
Re: This is old news and doesn't work heresaid by smcallah:Yeah, DPI doesn't care about ports. DPI looks at every packet, regardless of port and determines what is in the packet and then categorizes it. That is why it's called, DPI, Deep Packet Inspection. If Bell Canada's DPI is fooled by a port, then it's not that much of a DPI product. If you set a webserver to VPN ports, DPI would easily still be able to tell that it's a webserver. Just like it should be able to see that BitTorrent or any other P2P application has moved to another port. It looks at protocol AND port. | |
|
| | | |
Re: This is old news and doesn't work hereThen it's not much of a DPI product they're using. Since DPI should not care about ports, as it is looking at every packet regardless of the port and determines what the protocol is by the packet headers and deeper. It should never care about the port, since you can run anything on any port. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: This is old news and doesn't work heresaid by smcallah:Then it's not much of a DPI product they're using. Since DPI should not care about ports, as it is looking at every packet regardless of the port and determines what the protocol is by the packet headers and deeper. It should never care about the port, since you can run anything on any port. Yes but these Ellacoya boxes they're using are capable of much more than DPI even though it is their main function. The main reason Bell configured it this way I think is because Bell uses port 995 for SSL over pop3. Not only does it do port filtering, they can use it to identify subscribers, measure usage etc. | |
|
| |
to Gerk
Hi,
We are located in East Toroto (15min East of downtown core), and this works for us. YMMV.
Regards,
Applied Research Per Vices Corporation | |
|
DevanchyaSmile Premium Member join:2003-12-09 Ajax, ON |
People who P2P Encrpyt kill the Internet for othersI'm fighting with Bell and Rogers right now because my business lines are getting capped / crippled.
They are treating encrypted traffic as if it is P2P traffic.
I don't believe in throttling.
I am frustrated that people getting "around" throttling has caused my legit use to get throttled.
In this way, all parties are guilty. | |
|
| |
yaaaaaawn
Anon
2008-Jul-8 4:18 pm
Re: People who P2P Encrpyt kill the Internet for otherssaid by Devanchya:I'm fighting with Bell and Rogers right now because my business lines are getting capped / crippled. They are treating encrypted traffic as if it is P2P traffic. I don't believe in throttling. I am frustrated that people getting "around" throttling has caused my legit use to get throttled. In this way, all parties are guilty. You're choice to use them for business. No one elses. Maybe your review should reflect the true service you are getting and the true value for your money. | |
|
| |
to Devanchya
HAHAHAHAH
WE are killing the Internet for you ?!! LOL that's a new one. How about BELL/ROBERS/OTHER INCUMBENT ISP that are throttling your encrypted connection in the first place ? Internet should not be throttled based on protocol. You pay a certain amount per month to have a pipe coming in your home that treats all traffic equal. However you decide to treat that traffic and prioritize it is your problem not the ISPs. If you think otherwise, then you deserve what you're getting.
And yes, WTH are you thinkin giving bell such a high review yet you come here to complain about their service ?
Adi | |
|
| | DevanchyaSmile Premium Member join:2003-12-09 Ajax, ON |
Re: People who P2P Encrpyt kill the Internet for othersActually I didn't think my bell review was high. In fact it's dropped a lot since I first did one.
Reality is, my home connection is rock solid. The web is always there. My e-mail hasn't died in a year. I can do what I want.
I very specifically stated that there are better ISP for the cost.
What my point is, is instead of going after the ISP and complaining or doing the leg work that is going on with the CRTC... people go for the 'easy route' and this in fact causes issues for others who are using the protocols for the right means.
If there were a decently priced ISP that would offer internet connection for the office I would take it. Rogers only came in and wired it because they were fighting against LOOK for business back then. Bell because we were in the same building as a bank.
I'd move the office but the Lease would cost money to break. Moving costs money. Good employee's might quit if they decide it's to far to move.
So.... here I am, fighting with 2 giant corporations regarding throttled encrypted connections... because someone decided they wanted to get faster P2P speeds.
Understand,... this Rant is not directed towards those who use P2P in legitimate reasons. It's towards those who do P2P pirating, have tons of seeds going, and just leave the computer running 24x7 because they don't give a crap for their fellow man. | |
|
| 1 edit
1 recommendation |
to Devanchya
said by Devanchya:I'm fighting with Bell and Rogers right now because my business lines are getting capped / crippled. They are treating encrypted traffic as if it is P2P traffic. I don't believe in throttling. I am frustrated that people getting "around" throttling has caused my legit use to get throttled. In this way, all parties are guilty. I don't believe in throttling either. We aren't causing it, it's the ISPs. It's also very easy to bypass with the right hardware and ISP. I'm only guilty because my telco is making me guilty. | |
|
| |
Troll Deflector to Devanchya
Anon
2008-Jul-9 12:46 pm
to Devanchya
said by Devanchya:I am frustrated that people getting "around" throttling has caused my legit use to get throttled. In this way, all parties are guilty. Please point us to the law or regulation that makes the use of the bittorrent protocol or finding a way to make it work under a defective ISP's service illegitimate. Some people use http to communicate illegal things. By your logic, you just as guilty as them since you used the http protocol to make your post here. | |
|
jfmezei Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2008-Jul-8 6:34 pm
This may be a strategic tacticPer Vices's filing may affect how Bell makes it next filing. Bell has already admitted that their DPI is able to find BitTorrent that hides under a well known port (Bell uses "masquerading" but that would imply BitTorrent emilate the protocol of another application which it doesn't)
Bell may be forced to admit that instead of looking for BitTorrent signatures, it may throttle everything by default, and then unthrottle certain well known protocols when the application signature and the port match the protocol. | |
|
|
Additional InformationHi, We've put together a quick technical brief detailing more clearly how to bypass the throttling, and giving specific examples using two sample bit-torrent clients (uTorrent, KTorrent). You can find it here: » www.pervices.com/docs/th ··· rief.pdfRight now, we have tested this on a third party ISP (Tek Savvy). We are not sure if this can be extended to Sympatico retail customers. It may also be that the DPI device is configured to grey list bit torrent users temporarily. We appreciate any feedback - specifically your ISP, and if you have success using this method. Warm Regards, Victor Wollesen Applied Research Per Vices Corporation | |
|
| PerVices |
Re: Additional InformationWe have received independent confirmation that this applies to retail Sympatico customers.
Victor Wollesen Applied Research Per Vices Corporation | |
|
| imis join:2006-11-15 Kanata, ON |
to PerVices
The guide lists ports 1723 and 1753, just wondering which is the correct one to use? | |
|
| 1 edit |
It is supposed to be TCP/1723 - that is the registered VPN port. The KTorrent client configuration is correct, and we have fixed the errata. Our apologies; we don't normally use WindowsXP, we just installed uTorrent for the purpose of demonstrating how to setup the ports.
Thank you for the heads up,
Applied Research Per Vices Corporation | |
|
| |
mdev to PerVices
Anon
2008-Jul-16 9:55 pm
to PerVices
I love you. Thank you. Thank you ever so much. | |
|
|
SweetLets hack Hughesnet so we could do the same. | |
|
|
Ginko
Anon
2008-Jul-9 12:50 am
it works for VelcomI was not paying attention to all of this but noticed today in Etobicoke that everything started to slow down in Azureus to about 30kB/s up 30kB/s down. Velcom had some maintenance last night and I thought it had to do with that. I did a search and found this site/discussion and followed these instructions. Immediately my downloads went back up to a 'normal' 475kB/s and uploads back up to about 75kB/s which is where they always seemed to level off before today.
So it worked for me. The change was instantaneous. I hope it lasts!
~d | |
|
1 edit |
Nothing newNow to burst the bubble.
Its a placebo effect nothing more.
When you make changes it takes the throttling hardware/software time to adjust.
How long it takes varies on how closely the area is being looked at and how major the change is.
If your lucky it well take some time to catch up but it well catch up and if you unlucky then it well do it in very short order.
This method is nothing new as was used sometime back. It would seem the researcher didn't do the research since its common knowledge encryption is next to useless in this case. | |
|
| •••••••• |
|
huh utorrent, cant find the options to changehow do i get this to work with utorrent? cant find the options.... | |
|
|
|