 
Smith6612
Premium
join:2008-02-01
united state | Well... Let's see how long it takes before they start throttling all traffic on port 21 and 80. | |
|
 | Firefoxer
join:2007-09-27
Quebec, QC
1 edit | Re: Well... "All" traffic?
Rogers also did behavioral shaping on those ports. | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Well... said by Firefoxer  :"All" traffic? Rogers also did behavioral shaping on those ports. whats that? | |
|
| | | 
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
 ·VoicePulse
| Knock, Knock. said by patcat88 :said by Firefoxer :Rogers also did behavioral shaping on those ports. whats that? That's when BellCanada sends a couple of their Sicilian relations by your house to teach you about "Internet Etiquette".
NV | |
|
CanadianIron
join:2006-10-08
Beverly Hills, CA
| Cat and mouse most definitely Read this 2 page document:
»www.ellacoya.com/products/IPServ···stem.pdf
Network definable applictaion signatures located anywhere in packet.
Can detect a P2P application operating on any port, even in HTTP on port 80. | |
|
| |
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | All that means is that they look at the headers of the connections to determine content, time to start tunneling. Make it look like an HTTP image transfer. Heck, ive seen a VPN over DNS packets tunnel. Beat that ellacoya lol. | |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | Experience with another ISP I found that enabling BitTorrent encryption (PE+MSE, which has been out for more than a year), did extend the time it took for Comcast+Sandvine to detect the protocol and interrupt it. This is probably because (I'm guessing) the additional handshake broke one signature and allowed the conversation to enter the Tit-for-tat (file transfer mode). Now past the handshake, then only after enough packets were observed (still guessing), they had enough information to determine that the protocol was BitTorrent.
BitTorrent "encryption" is a bit of a misnomer. It's a simple cipher, so beyond the handshake, it adds no overhead. Unfortunately, it also means that 1) it's easy to crack, and 2) even if not cracked, you can still pretty much detect it just from packet lengths (a REQUEST is always the same size, a HAVE is always the same size, and etc.) and order (HAVE precedes INTERESTED, UNCHOKE precedes REQUEST, and etc.).
Ironically, this also means that Deep Packet Inspection is not needed to interfere with it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. | |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Not going to last... While they may have decided to whitelist port 80 to avoid compatibility issues, they DO use deep packet inspection, so this isn't a permanent workaround.
Using a VPN to tunnel your traffic is. They can't throttle VPNs because of business users, and they can't apply different throttling to business users because that would give people legitimate anti-competition complaints (Bell throttles TekSavvy's business customers but not their own).
Downside? You need a remote box. Upside? You can find a decent VPS for half the cost of your DSL line. | |
|
| warthunder2k
join:2002-04-20
canada | Re: Not going to last... Then again, rogers throttles all the encrypted traffic, so they may do the same | |
|
| |
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Not going to last... Rogers doesn't throttle their wholesalers, and so doesn't have to worry about anticompetition claims. Bell does.
Bell currently throttles PPPoE business customers of both themselves and wholesalers. They can do this because they equally throttle both. While they CAN identify their own business customers based on the different logon domain, they can't identify a wholesaler's business customer like that.
As such, it's extremely unlikely that they'd try to apply different throttling to business customers (who need VPNs) than to residential customers. | |
|
TI POIL
join:2006-03-05
Toronto, ON | . Does Rogers chock on VPN as well.
I had a VPN service for 3 months when Bell started that throttling last October. It worked great I was full speed 24/7 but for $15 a month I don't know if it's really worth it. | |
|
| 
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
London, ON | Re: . For $15 a month you should be getting newsgroups. Max your pipe speed all the time. | |
|
| |
TI POIL
join:2006-03-05
Toronto, ON
1 edit | Re: . That $15 was only for the VPN service.
So the only way to really avoid BS throttling is with a VPN service. | |
|
| | |
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bell Sympatico
1 edit | Re: . Right, but while you got "full speed" on torrents with VPN tunnelling, it is still dependent on seeders from there. NG's get you full speed on all files no matter the obscurity was my point - no need for VPN.
Or is this whole "throttling everything" meaning they're hammering that too?....I mean Rogers throttles, but not my newsgroups... | |
|
| | | |
TI POIL
join:2006-03-05
Toronto, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: . The VPN was great when I wanted to DL something during their peek hours (4pm-2am) That when they choke your connection, for instance I needed to type something so I downloaded Microsoft Word at 6pm thank to the VPN I got it within a few hours otherwise the full DL would of started at 2am that night. | |
|
root9
join:2005-04-08
Kitchener, ON
·Bell Sympatico
1 edit | I just don't want to believe that PPL are so gullable. Any time that an ISP uses "deep packet inspection" they are opening the packet. In real terms this is as opening a letter you have sent through Canada Post.
This means they have broken Privacy Laws! It also means they have broken their contract as to advertised speeds and terms of service.
ISP's are NOT CSIS, RCMP or any Canadian national security agency. They don't provide a warrant or any legal standing before doing so.
ISP's have No right to send Reset code to both parties. This is also illegal!
You have the right to take them to court for any infraction, charge them for lost time, bandwidth, work etc. and get your proper service back.
TCP/IP has it's own checks and sums that can be used to admin a user account. Instead they, ISP's, use intrusion code to throttle everyone.
Come on, what's it gona take to wake PPL up? | |
|
| 
blueeyesm
join:2003-09-05
Waterloo, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: I just don't want to believe that PPL are so gullable. All you have to do now is actually prove they are opening your packets with datestamps.
Further, there is a clause (if I recall correctly) in Rogers EULA regarding courts cases between you and them. Basically stating, you waive the right to take them to court. You either agree to use the service or end your contract. | |
|
| | gxng
join:2001-02-21
Saint-Laurent, QC
| Re: I just don't want to believe that PPL are so gullable. What happened to net neutrality, EFF and privacy laws?
Stupid Bell monopolies...and their crap!
Typical government not doing enough or keeping up with digital laws regarding this crap that Bell and others are doing.
Damn too bad Bell's doing it to other DSL resellers like Tecksavvy cuz they got best rating for ISP compared to Bell. | |
|
| MrShag
join:2006-07-09
Hamilton, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Cogeco Cable
·Mountain Cable
| isnt this a DMCA violation? If this is true, and deep-packet inspection does open up the packets, wouldnt that be a violation of the DMCA?
I thought that if **ia's can go after you for breaking the encyrption, can't you go after the isps uing the same logic?
--
" Hi Im such and such, and I use Mountain Cable Vision because they offered me a deal fir the promo, not to mention I have no choice." | |
|
| | 
merak
@cgitmsmdc.ca | Re: isnt this a DMCA violation? The DMCA is only applicable to the USA. Thankfully, we aren't yet the 51st state! | |
|
|
|
|
Getting Around Bell Canada's Traffic Shaping
