ISP deprioritising LFS traffic.. [Archive]

paublo999

27th November 2006, 14:59

Hi,

Probably a question for the real techies amongst us... :)

My ISP is being a real pita about my (and probably all their customers) access to LFS servers. They are using very agressive traffic shaping and also low level packet analysis to decide on the traffic priority...

As a result my traffic for non standard LFS ports can be around 1500ms or worse.. :(

My ISP either wants (1) a signature or a way of uniquely identifying LFS packets, so that they can be prioritised or (2) a list of servers that I connect to and the ports that they are on..

Option 2 above feels very limited to me, but it may be an option if Scawen etc could give me a snapshot list of servers from the master and I get my ISP to add them all.. :thumb:

Option 1, to properly identfy LFS as a real time priority application would be ideal. Anyone available to advise?

Thanks all, hopefully Scawen will reply :)

p.s. I realise that I could move ISP, but I still have a good few months before my contract is up... :( Anyone else use plusnet in the uk?

Cheers
Paul.

paublo999

27th November 2006, 15:05

Just found this thread, not looking good...

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=15580&highlight=isp

Any suggestions.... other than move the hassles that go with it.. :scratchch

Cheers
Paul.

Davo

27th November 2006, 15:11

Bean0

27th November 2006, 15:38

From PlusNet member centre (http://portal.plus.net/central/forums/viewtopic.php?t=50979&pn_session=3b495810840d569bc8a62ebe581715cb) (u & p: guest)...

Next we looked at gaming. We found a few users who have managed to use a significant amount of bandwidth. Again, Gaming is put in the Titanium Q so inappropriate amounts of traffic in this Q can impact the whole user base. Yesterday we applied a 512Kb/s rate limit to any flow identified as being gaming.

There must be a way of proving LFS traffic is gaming, and the 512 cap shouldn't affect it.

dadge

27th November 2006, 16:28

MadCatX

27th November 2006, 16:48

Next we looked at gaming. We found a few users who have managed to use a significant amount of bandwidth. Again, Gaming is put in the Titanium Q so inappropriate amounts of traffic in this Q can impact the whole user base. Yesterday we applied a 512Kb/s rate limit to any flow identified as being gaming.

They did what? They just cut your gaming data to poor 512kb/s? What the world do they think they are doing? You pay for net speed you desired and now they say that all your games are limited to 512kb/s just becuase of excessive bandwidth usage?

I dont know UK ISPs but I have never seen this in CZ. Download limits, aggregation, even banned P2P communication is something I can understand, but Speed shaping depending on what type of transfer it is sounds too heavy to me.

So paublo999, just as a human using that filthy something in his brain-pan I reccomend following. Keep calm until your contract runs out and then change to another ISP as fast as possible. Thats what I would do if I were you, if for nothing more, than at least for the act of revenge.

paublo999

27th November 2006, 17:00

Hi All,

I dont have the option of cable... :( outwith the small number of cabled areas in Scotland..

As for keeping calm, already lost it many times with them, but will have to shell out £47 in fees to move, its looking that way...

If Scawen could give me a "packet" signature for LFS then they could identify them. The problem is that the conedodgers and other servers use non-standard ports for some reason and they get deprioritised.

I will move, but my brother - non techie and other friends are subscribers and I will have to sort out their messes aswell..

the state of ISP's and BT in general in the Uk is a disgrace..:shrug:

Hopefully Scawen will drop in to this thread and let me know if this "signature" can be derived.. :)

cheers
Paul.

Bean0

27th November 2006, 17:14

They did what? They just cut your gaming data to poor 512kb/s? What the world do they think they are doing? You pay for net speed you desired and now they say that all your games are limited to 512kb/s just becuase of excessive bandwidth usage?

I dont know UK ISPs but I have never seen this in CZ. Download limits, aggregation, even banned P2P communication is something I can understand, but Speed shaping depending on what type of transfer it is sounds too heavy to me.

So paublo999, just as a human using that filthy something in his brain-pan I reccomend following. Keep calm until your contract runs out and then change to another ISP as fast as possible. Thats what I would do if I were you, if for nothing more, than at least for the act of revenge.

If you read through that Plusnet site, it seems that some people have been using VOIP and gaming protocols to mask p2p and avoid the traffic shaping/capping. They have also limited VOIP to 128kb/s.

The sh!t hit the fan when it was decided to upgrade all 512 subscribers to a 2mbit service, the ISPs suddenly found themselves running out of bandwidth. Now with the 'maxADSL' up-to-8mbit service the problem has only gotten worse. ISPs have pushed the packages with higher speeds to people who simply do not need them (only browse, email, IM) but the knock on effect is that the current infrastructure is overwhelmed by the overheads caused by keeping open all of these dormant connections.

POTS is dead, we need fibre, but the Govt don't want to pay for it and neither do the Telcos.

TagForce

27th November 2006, 21:31

If you read through that Plusnet site, it seems that some people have been using VOIP and gaming protocols to mask p2p and avoid the traffic shaping/capping. They have also limited VOIP to 128kb/s.

The sh!t hit the fan when it was decided to upgrade all 512 subscribers to a 2mbit service, the ISPs suddenly found themselves running out of bandwidth. Now with the 'maxADSL' up-to-8mbit service the problem has only gotten worse. ISPs have pushed the packages with higher speeds to people who simply do not need them (only browse, email, IM) but the knock on effect is that the current infrastructure is overwhelmed by the overheads caused by keeping open all of these dormant connections.

POTS is dead, we need fibre, but the Govt don't want to pay for it and neither do the Telcos.

It has nothing to do with POTS... POTS can handle 20Mbps per user easily.
It's just your ISPs being lame and coming up with solutions to a non-existing problem to make it worse for themselves.

Any ISP that resorts to traffic shaping/capping to "prioritize" packets (read: Spend less money on bandwidth while sucking more money from your wallets) should be terminated. And I mean, literally terminated from business by the government.

Viper93

27th November 2006, 21:42

I have the Phone Coop ASDL connection, I wonder if this could be my problem with LFS having connection issues... :scratchch

wheel4hummer

27th November 2006, 21:47

I have seen ISPs advertise 15mbit service, and claim that it makes your browsing faster. There isnt much difference in download speed anything above 2-3mbit.

ebola

28th November 2006, 19:47

Just found this thread, not looking good...

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=15580&highlight=isp

Any suggestions.... other than move the hassles that go with it.. :scratchch

Cheers
Paul.

I know it will cost you but please move, for the greater good!!! These ISP's need eradicating!

SamH

28th November 2006, 23:28

As for keeping calm, already lost it many times with them, but will have to shell out £47 in fees to move, its looking that way...
You've entered into a contract where your ISP is required to deliver a service and you are required to pay for it, for the duration of the contract. Your ISP's actions are absolutely in breach of contract, if the result of their traffic shaping is that your service is diminished. Your LFS usage is not an abuse of the service, but the fact that they are negatively affecting your service means that they ARE in breach of contract.

You are no longer bound to any contract with PlusNet, and they cannot charge you an early termination fee if they've failed to deliver a service you paid for. It's simply unlawful to do so.

keiran

29th November 2006, 00:13

You've entered into a contract where your ISP is required to deliver a service and you are required to pay for it, for the duration of the contract. Your ISP's actions are absolutely in breach of contract, if the result of their traffic shaping is that your service is diminished. Your LFS usage is not an abuse of the service, but the fact that they are negatively affecting your service means that they ARE in breach of contract.

You are no longer bound to any contract with PlusNet, and they cannot charge you an early termination fee if they've failed to deliver a service you paid for. It's simply unlawful to do so.

We found out the hard way that ISPs can do what ever they like and get off with it :shrug:.

For about 2/3 years we were with a company called e7even, was cheap and cheerful. A lot of people had problems with them but we had very few and had far better service/customer support than we were getting with BT at my parents shop.

e7even basically ended (obviously owed Tiscali and Netservices money) when Tiscali and Netservices ganged up and cut us all off to this `walled garden` where they basically said take out a contract with this company no one has heard of (reselling Tiscali services) or be stuck in our walled garden.

For about a month we and many others were banging on fighting with Ofcom to actually do something. BT said they couldn't do anything without Ofcom giving the go ahead so basically it all came back to Ofcom who don't have any power at all judging by the many phone calls we had with them :shrug:

All we wanted was a migration code/tag removed from our line but nope. This company called EzzeDSL claimed they couldn't do that yet they managed to do it within 24hours when you handed your cash over for a 12 month contract.

The laugh of it was that Ofcom couldn't do a thing and weren't that interested. I think they got a bit of a shake up when quite a lot of us got in touch with our MPs who were forwarding the letters on. Now it seems they are trying to push through a new migration system after what happened to the e7even customers.

To me it seems totally bizarre that it's your phone line yet you seem to have very little control of what's installed on it etc...

SamH

29th November 2006, 00:24

Yep, there have been some problems along the way. The good news is that it's been addressed and now, when you request your "MAC" code, the company is required (now by law) to provide it within a day or two. I'm tempted to say 24 hours, but I don't think it's required to be quite that quick.. but certainly no significant delays are allowed these days. They can't withhold it subject to receiving payment either, according to the DTI guidelines, and it's now very difficult (read: impossible) for an ISP to hold you to ransom using the MAC code and not break the law in the process.

The best advice I can offer anyone planning to migrate from an ISP in the UK.. when requesting the MAC code, do NOT cancel your account at that time, and don't tell them that you plan to do so either. If you do intimate your intention to depart, you could find yourself offline when they cancel your account and thus render your MAC code invalid. Normal turnaround when they do that, to get back online, is around 2 weeks.. so make the point that you're only asking for the code and NOT cancelling your account.

SamH

29th November 2006, 01:59

@ Paublo999, I've now read the entire 16-page thread on PN's site (referenced earlier). You're definitely, 100% for sure, not any more locked in to any contract. Any contract you signed up for is now definitely rendered null and void by PN, through their traffic-shaping, and it's been pretty irrefutibly acknowledged by Simon Day of PN in that thread. They're also very obviously in deep do-do with OFCOM.

You should raise a ticket with PN in the short term. It's not for Scawen to redesign the netcode for LFS, to add additional packet headers to a data stream just to cater for a >100% subscribed ISP. We would ALL suffer additional network load if Scawen were to do that. I just don't see that happening.

Raising a ticket will put, in writing, that you're suffering as a result of PN's changes to their service regarding gaming. You're a legitimate gamer, and they guaranteed full line speed to gamers. Now there is a 512k restriction and thus the contract you signed up for is no longer in effect (even if LFS was still working fine, they've nevertheless breached their own contract and rendered it ineffective). If you raise a ticket, they may remove the restrictions on your line to solve the problem. Who knows.. can't see it, but what you have now isn't worth diddly.

I still think you'd be better off with an alternative ISP. AOL would be a good option at this point.. at least there aren't any bandwidth limitations at this time. This may change now that TalkTalk are taking over the network, but I doubt very much they'll make any fundamental changes to limits or any shaping in the short term. It's a solid network with none of the oversubscription issues that PN have, plus they own most/all of the higher infrastructure. It's an all-round better option than PN.. but it's just one of many. PN is by far the most aggressive traffic-shaping ISP in the UK at this point, to my knowledge.. anywhere you move to is likely to be better. The only way is up.

Fordman

29th November 2006, 09:00

Paublo999,

You are not tied into a contract with PN ( assuming you are with PN ) and they know this. as SAMH Said, they are in breach of contract, and also, HAVE to give you a MAC Code. Get this MAC Code and move on. Both me and d34n0 from T7R had to do this. Once we moved, our Ping times returned to normal.

Scawen cannot do anything about this. As its not the master server that is causing the problems, its just PN's traffic shaping.

All I can suggest is move. Eclipse are doing a good offer atm. You get free ADSL2+ Wireless router, and free month if you Migrate.

Mention me if you do :thumb:

Regards

Fordie

D34N0

29th November 2006, 10:23

:iagree: or mention me MAD129 :D

But priority is get away from PlusNet soon to be renamed MinusNet as their are unable to honour the terms of the contract

Dean

CSU1

29th November 2006, 11:07

i use NTL, sure their customer support sux really bad, but on the plaus side i have a 10mbps (512kbps upload)line that is uncappedfor £35 a month. i only time out if my modem crashes. they also do a 4mbps line (400kbps upload) that seems to be the popular choice(£25 per month). BT have a 40gb per month limit on their 8mbps (488kbps upload) (£27 per month) but BT needs a phone line and NTL don't.

I too use the 10mb NTL package and never have problems, but then again would'nt know what problems are because I've never had one:tilt: , anyway someone round here once said to steer clear of cable providers as your ISP, for what reason:shrug:
It does amaze me how all that information can be squezed through a copper coaxial cable 2mm in thickness, on a normal evening where I live there is three NTL-Digi box's running around the house and I would be connected to LFS master server!!!
And another provider here, Irish Broadband send the signal through the centre of the Electricity Supply Board's high-tension power cables! meaning that the modem picks up the signal from the power socket in you house!!! Now thats cool!
Thats a HELL of a lot of information going through that little cable!

nikimere

29th November 2006, 11:52

And another provider here, Irish Broadband send the signal through the centre of the Electricity Supply Board's high-tension power cables!
OT: really!? i was with IB before and terminated there services after weeks of trying to get "Customer Support" from someone who couldn't even speak bloody english!! I had crap signal on there wireless thing and the service went down regularly. I use Eircom and although they're bloody expensive (think i'm paying €68 a month for 3MB) i very rarely have an issue and if i do customer support is great.

CSU1

29th November 2006, 11:58

OT: really!? i was with IB before and terminated there services after weeks of trying to get "Customer Support" from someone who couldn't even speak bloody english!! I had crap signal on there wireless thing and the service went down regularly. I use Eircom and although they're bloody expensive (think i'm paying €68 a month for 3MB) i very rarely have an issue and if i do customer support is great.

Yes, I never used/know of anyone whuses IB, I'm just impressed at the innovative solution this crowd came up with, it is pretty cool for MR.jones who doesn't do anything but "surf the web"....I should hope it's pretty cheap too, if it is cheap then its cool:)
€68 p/m for 3mb:pillepall , thats pretty expensive, power too ya:)

paublo999

29th November 2006, 12:05

Thanks for all the information and support.

I hear you all loud and clear and will ask for my MAC code..

For the greater good... :thumb:

nikimere

29th November 2006, 12:05

€68 p/m for 3mb:pillepall , thats pretty expensive, power too ya:)
LFS is worth it :D

the_angry_angel

29th November 2006, 12:16

PN is by far the most aggressive traffic-shaping ISP in the UK at this point, to my knowledge.. anywhere you move to is likely to be better. The only way is up.

I too use the 10mb NTL package and never have problems, but then again would'nt know what problems are because I've never had one:tilt:

Just to fill you guys in, packet shaping is starting to become the defacto standard for "unlimited" packages. NTL/Telewest (Blueyonder) are trialling a scheme in the north of England, I believe, which does some form of packet shaping in "peak hours" (defined as early evening - late evening by their standards). Sadly, they're considering introducing it to the rest of their network at the moment.

Eclipse also packet shape during peak times - but this doesnt seem to be causing any problems so far :)

The sad alternative from this is going to a bandwidth limited package. Which is fine, unless you move a lot of files around - especially as bandwidth in the UK isn't cheap :(

CSU1

29th November 2006, 12:34

Just to fill you guys in, packet shaping is starting to become the defacto standard for "unlimited" packages. NTL/Telewest (Blueyonder) are trialling a scheme in the north of England, I believe, which does some form of packet shaping in "peak hours" (defined as early evening - late evening by their standards). Sadly, they're considering introducing it to the rest of their network at the moment.

Eclipse also packet shape during peak times - but this doesnt seem to be causing any problems so far :)

The sad alternative from this is going to a bandwidth limited package. Which is fine, unless you move a lot of files around - especially as bandwidth in the UK isn't cheap :(

My knowledge in this area is very little: When a player connects to say Redline's server, are all these packets sent dirctley to/thorugh the machine that Redline is using to host the game? or are these packets sent amongst the machines using the server(all the other players connected to redline's server)?

the_angry_angel

29th November 2006, 12:42

My knowledge in this area is very little: When a player connects to say Redline's server, are all these packets sent dirctley to/thorugh the machine that Redline is using to host the game? or are these packets sent amongst the machines using the server(all the other players connected to redline's server)?Basically how it works in LFS is that you talk to the server, and just the server. The server relays and (checks to a very limited extent) the packets from other racers to you.

The problem is that any traffic that goes from your PC (or internal network) to the internet, has to at bear minimum go through your ISPs servers which is where the packet shaping occurs (typically traffic will go through a number of different ISPs networks to get to it destination).

sgt.flippy

29th November 2006, 12:45

Any ISP that shapes like that deserves to be left behind. They're simplt only catering for the mums and dads that download email and check their banking on the net.

Gamers are really left out in the internet, finding a suitable ISP cn be a hassle and you usually have to paye xtra for the serveice of having a low ping and sweet connection to game servers.
Just wanted to say this: My ISP has a website dedicated to gaming, and even advertise with it. You can borrow games from their website to play them online.

I only pay about 40 euros per month, and I get 10 gigs up/download (so 10 gigs is my total, you can use it to download or upload, whatever you need most). They tried to make it easy for gamers to control their usage, it didn't work so good (I never been that much on smallband before then when they did that), but now they changed it again, because of complaining gamers..

CSU1

29th November 2006, 12:46

Basically how it works in LFS is that you talk to the server, and just the server. The server relays and (checks to a very limited extent) the packets from other racers to you.

The problem is that any traffic that goes from your PC (or internal network) has to the internet to go through at least your ISPs servers - which is where the packet shaping occurs.

Ah, I see.Now is there no other secure way of connecting dirctley to each server?
Whats a VPN connection?
Surely there must be a way of segragating LFS packets from the rest of the http:// shite?

Tube

29th November 2006, 12:48

Just to fill you guys in, packet shaping is starting to become the defacto standard for "unlimited" packages.

only over the ocean, really :)
If an ISP starts messing with port-based priorisation/caps over here, it's usually slaughtered in the press pretty fast. Most ISPs can't afford that so the de facto standard move to get rid of "bandwidth hungry" customers is to pay them to move away.
I'm currently paying 3€/month for unlimited traffic.

the_angry_angel

29th November 2006, 12:51

only over the ocean, really
If an ISP starts messing with port-based priorisation/caps over here, it's usually slaughtered in the press pretty fast. Most ISPs can't afford that so the de facto standard move to get rid of "bandwidth hungry" customers is to pay them to move away.
I'm currently paying 3€/month for unlimited traffic.Sorry, I'll ammend that in a sec ;) Considering it was a discussion on UK ISPs, I didn't think it was worth pointing out.

You have to bear in mind, that the UK is in a bit of a back water, when it comes to the internet, understanding what packet shaping is, and "consumer rights" :( We're the kind of nation to generally put up with things and grumble in the butchers or the bus queue.

Ah, I see.Now is there no other secure way of connecting dirctley to each server?
Whats a VPN connection?
Surely there must be a way of segragating LFS packets from the rest of the http:// shite?Theres no real way to go directly from your PC to a server. You'll have to cross into other networks (its just how the internet works). A VPN just "fakes" being on the same network.

Sure you could VPN to a server, and its possible that the traffic wouldn't be throttled, but the problem is that the overheads of creating the maintaining a VPN are quite high - so it might make things worse.

xaotik

29th November 2006, 12:53

Whats a VPN connection?

Virtual Private Network - you configure two devices (either computers or routers) as bridges and they tunnel any data that you send to them (usually within a reserved IP range) to and fro via an internet connection. The end result is that you can connect two phyiscally separated LANs into what appears to be a single LAN.

Surely there must be a way of segragating LFS packets from the rest of the http:// shite?

Sure there is - already that's what's happening with the traffic shaping. LFS uses UDP streams and usually the server is in the 62000s portrange which is very common for p2p (bittorrent for example) apps nowadays (and very likely gets recognized as such and deprioritized - hence, extra latency).

CSU1

29th November 2006, 12:57

Sorry, I'll ammend that in a sec ;) Considering it was a discussion on UK ISPs, I didn't think it was worth pointing out.

You have to bear in mind, that the UK is in a bit of a back water, when it comes to the internet, understanding what packet shaping is, and "consumer rights" :( We're the kind of nation to generally put up with things and grumble in the butchers or the bus queue.

Theres no real way to go directly from your PC to a server. You'll have to cross into other networks (its just how the internet works). A VPN just "fakes" being on the same network.

Sure you could VPN to a server, and its possible that the traffic wouldn't be throttled, but the problem is that the overheads of creating the maintaining a VPN are quite high - so it might make things worse.

Ok, which "kind/type" of packets are "throttled" by ISP's, or what type are going to by "shaped" under the new rules?

the_angry_angel

29th November 2006, 13:01

Ok, which "kind/type" of packets are "throttled" by ISP's, or what type are going to by "shaped" under the new rules?Whatever they feel like. Its likely to be anything running under common file sharing ports. So anything high. Like LFS.

I honestly can't tell you, as the people I know aren't the ones making those decisions atm :(

Tube

29th November 2006, 13:07

Sorry, I'll ammend that in a sec ;) Considering it was a discussion on UK ISPs, I didn't think it was worth pointing out.

I didn't even notice that, kinda mixed up the Irish flag with Italy. germany is like an education nirvana ;)

the_angry_angel

29th November 2006, 13:08

germany is like an education nirvana ;)rofl, I'll have to remember that

xaotik

29th November 2006, 13:15

One idea would be to get server admins to run their servers in port ranges that other much popular games play in. Like CounterStrike for example. Since it's popular like that alot of ISPs probably don't throttle traffic identified as belonging to it.

I just looked it up and a CS host apparently uses UDP ports 27000-27015.

I am not entirely sure if it would be valid to consider using a specific DSCP value in the packet headers since that is commonly used in traffic shaping rules (atleast on Cisco's IOS that I know of).

EDIT:
Funnily enough and relative to UK ISP issues I just found this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4758636.stm) on BBC.

the_angry_angel

29th November 2006, 13:24

One idea would be to get server admins to run their servers in port ranges that other much popular games play in.I'd much prefer this. Infact I'd prefer LFS to ship with a very different default port for this very reason. Its not really a solution though - more of a workaround. But hell, it would work.

I am not entirely sure if it would be valid to consider using a specific DSCP value in the packet headers since that is commonly used in traffic shaping rules (atleast on Cisco's IOS that I know of).I honestly don't know if its valid to do this from an application stand point, or even how possible it is using the standard windows apis, either tbh :( I'd argue not, and that it should be the job of your router to do this, as its your edge device. That requires configuration and being compliant with DSCP - which I don't believe many home routers are.

Funnily enough and relative to UK ISP issues I just found this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4758636.stm) on BBC.Mr Livingstone is the biggest, uninformed cock on UK tech-related TV imho.

xaotik

29th November 2006, 13:38

I'd much prefer this. Infact I'd prefer LFS to ship with a very different default port for this very reason. Its not really a solution though - more of a workaround. But hell, it would work.

Yeah - until the bulk of p2p users shift to using that port range too stupidly thinking they'll get higher speeds.

I'll take a peek at LFS traffic and see if there's anything else that could make it stand out when using typical traffic shaping rules.

I honestly don't know if its valid to do this from an application stand point, or even how possible it is using the standard windows apis, either tbh :( I'd argue not, and that it should be the job of your router to do this, as its your edge device. That requires configuration and being compliant with DSCP - which I don't believe many home routers are.

Well you can control it, but most likely it will not mean anything unless you know what rules the ISP is using (which come to think of it usually just disregard the initial DSCP to start with).

Mr Livingstone is the biggest, uninformed cock on UK tech-related TV imho.

Beats me, I never turn to BBC for tech news, just happened to find that when going through google news to see if popular media had references to traffic shaping being a major issue with ISPs.

CSU1

29th November 2006, 13:52

Whatever they feel like. Its likely to be anything running under common file sharing ports. So anything high. Like LFS.

I honestly can't tell you, as the people I know aren't the ones making those decisions atm :(
Ok, reading xaotik's post's I dont know what DSCP is probably better off not knowing, anyway is it that simple, to change the ports that LFS use?
If this packet shaping does prove to be a problem, I suppose you could get scawen to announce on-forum of a test port reconfiguration to see haow it effects the latencey times:shrug:

@ angry_angel: Why not announce a test and get 20 or so people from different country's at peak(cet) time to connect to a server which you/whoever will host, you could then try different port configurations while keeping in contact with all the players there and then to give them the port numbers too compare the times to the standard ports?

xaotik

29th November 2006, 14:10

If this packet shaping does prove to be a problem, I suppose you could get scawen to announce on-forum of a test port reconfiguration to see haow it effects the latencey times:shrug:

No need to involve Scawen in it - it could be organized by proposing it in the LFS Hosts subforum. Normally it shouldn't hinder functionality of servers and it doesn't take much to restart a server on a different port (say in the 27000-27015 range).

CSU1

29th November 2006, 14:15

No need to involve Scawen in it - it could be organized by proposing it in the LFS Hosts subforum. Normally it shouldn't hinder functionality of servers and it doesn't take much to restart a server on a different port (say in the 27000-27015 range).

Do you think a test of this type would be useful to give us an idea of how steering the port ranges away from the p2p ranges could effect latencey times?

Sticky-Micky

29th November 2006, 20:49

it is a sad state of affairs, a few days ago Bt Broadband started killing people using IRC when they receive a Dcc send or receive request

some people have had emails confirming they have been blocked, some like me have had emails denying its a BT problem, others have had emails saying its an ongoing concern and the engineers are looking into it.

it is only a matter of time before we are throttled into submission regarding everything :pillepall

I only ever download episodes of LOST from an IRC server since i dont belive in paying for sky just to watch one series :(

torrents/ port forwarding and the usual P2P stuff has been blocked on BT ever scince i started using them

xaotik

29th November 2006, 22:13

it is a sad state of affairs, a few days ago Bt Broadband started killing people using IRC when they receive a Dcc send or receive request

Atleast they got beyond breaking knee-caps.

Sticky-Micky

30th November 2006, 06:01

How do you mean?

SamH

30th November 2006, 06:06

Atleast they got beyond breaking knee-caps.
How do you mean?
a few days ago Bt Broadband started killing people using IRC
That's my guess, anyway ;)

Sticky-Micky

30th November 2006, 06:14

ohhh, crap comedy
great :scratchch :thumb:

ebola

30th November 2006, 23:12

Eclipse are now what Plusnet used to be and will go the same way as Plusnet IMO. Plusnet got took over and massively over subscribed leading to an absolutely horrendous service which would not be allowed in any other service sector. Get out while you can.

I think me and the_angry_angel need to meet for a pint because I always agree with everything he says!

The majority of people in England are stupid and I mean scarily stupid. I cannot watch news without screaming at the TV. Morons. :pillepall

I'm with Zen Internet and as far as I am aware they employ NO traffic shaping at all. Customer service is talked about as excellent (not used it personally because I have the ability to troubleshoot my own connections.) My LFS online experience is superb it just works. Im aware there are lots of other factors involved but its definitely a good experience coming from this camp.

I also think a lower port would be a good idea.

the_angry_angel

30th November 2006, 23:37

@ angry_angel: Why not announce a test and get 20 or so people from different country's at peak(cet) time to connect to a server which you/whoever will host, you could then try different port configurations while keeping in contact with all the players there and then to give them the port numbers too compare the times to the standard ports?I'm currently trying to acquire a new box and get it out of the door to a colocation facility in the next few days / weeks - so I'm hoping to have a test server up shortly so we can genuinely see whats happening. I've got a few lines, on various ISPs, I have access to so I can actually get some quantive results and try out a few tests. In the meantime, xaotik's request may provide some answers :)

Eclipse are now what Plusnet used to be and will go the same way as Plusnet IMO. Plusnet got took over and massively over subscribed leading to an absolutely horrendous service which would not be allowed in any other service sector. Get out while you can.I have the feeling Eclipse are going to stay near the top of the pile for at least a while tbh. We're (the company I work for) dealing a fair bit with Eclipse (home workers and ADSL backup lines) and their parent company (kingston communications - fibre lines); they both genuinely seem to be on the ball.

I think me and the_angry_angel need to meet for a pint because I always agree with everything he says!Next LFS meet? ;) Or are you near Bath any time? Seriously if you'd like to meet up and chat about random crap, and bitch about the world, I'm usually good for it :) That goes for anyone else on the forums.

I'm with Zen Internet and as far as I am aware they employ NO traffic shaping at all. Customer service is talked about as excellent (not used it personally because I have the ability to troubleshoot my own connections.) Ah Zen. Before we moved our home workers and backup ADSL lines to Eclipse, they were almost all exclusively with Zen. You're right, theres no shaping at all, but unfortunately the cost and the bandwidth limitations (going over allocations was a common problem on a few lines) were just too much for us, and I personally felt that the customer service was getting worse. Admitedly it was still pretty good (about equal to eclipse's atm), but there was certainly a marked decrease - unwillingness to do line tests etc. when both I and the guy on the other end knew it was BT's fault. Since they get charged each time they do a line test, I'm guessing the bean counters were coming down on the technical guys :(