ISPs kicking routers off internet?
Rob
Want to know: is there some signal an ISP can send to your router that
will disable it? Some ISPs don't want their users sharing the
internet, and I've heard rumours that there is actually some sort of
signal they can send out to disable the internet on their routers.
If so, this may be happening to me: I have a wireless router set up so
I can have the internet in my living room, but every now and again
(about 3 or 4 times a week), I loose internet completely, and the
router is unable to reconnect. It gets some error like "cant get ip
address" or something. The only solution is to unplug the router &
modem and plug them back in.
Anyone else ever heard of this? Any details you can point me to on
this mysterious signal? Any details I can look up? Any solution to
stop the drops anyone can offer?
Rob
Rôgêr
I have grave doubts that your ISP is doing it to you. But Google up
"Silver Bullet" to see what some cable companies have done. A new router
may help. Reconfiguring what you have is likely the best answer.
Rob
Rôgêr wrote:
> I have grave doubts that your ISP is doing it to you. But Google up
> "Silver Bullet" to see what some cable companies have done. A new router
> may help. Reconfiguring what you have is likely the best answer.
I google "Silver Bullet", but I can't find anything relating to cable
companies...what are you talking about?
Rob
Rôgêr
Back a few years ago, people were buying illegal boxes that were set to
pick up all channels. Perhaps it was satellite instead of cable, I don't
keep up since I'm not into that. But the companies could send out what
was referred to as a "silver bullet" and basically kill the illegal
boxes. They didn't work again, unless you really jumped through hoops.
But ISP's (btw, I'm an ISP on a small scale) don't give a crap if you
have more than one computer hooked up. Just don't be hooking up your
neighbors and/or reselling the hookup. Then you're crossing the line.
Penn...@derrymaine.gov
|>> I google "Silver Bullet", but I can't find anything relating to cable
|>> companies...what are you talking about?
|>
|>Back a few years ago, people were buying illegal boxes that were set to
|>pick up all channels. Perhaps it was satellite instead of cable
Satellite, and called black sunday (cause they turn'd it off during
much anticipated foot ball game)
http://impressive.net/archives/fogo/2001012902...@impressive.net
Another very interesting read. is how DirecTv used the hackers to help
reprogram bad bios chips - it was truly ingenious.
L83R
"Rob" wrote in message
> I can have the internet in my living room, but every now and again
> (about 3 or 4 times a week), I loose internet completely, and the
> router is unable to reconnect. It gets some error like "cant get ip
> address" or something. The only solution is to unplug the router &
> modem and plug them back in.
If you are DSL, you may have a problem I encountered,
in that I was at the exteme limit of the service (about
12,000 feet I believe). When upping my dsl speed, the modem
started erroring out and resetting. When they dropped my speed
back down, the problem went away. The explanation was that
by doubling my speed, the errors to the modem increased
exponentially. DSL does not care what or how much you
downoad, as it is a dedicated line... many of the cable companies
are now limiting uploads to a gigabyte a month or whatever.
If you are on cable, that may be a possibility, but as you are
resetting so often, I would doubt that to be the problem.
Jerry Attic
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Could be their server screwing up or maybe you should try updating the
firmware on your router. If it's their server, not much you do about it.
Jerry
Margolotta
(in article <dt%ug.1449$157...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
>
> "Rob" wrote in message
>
>> I can have the internet in my living room, but every now and again
>> (about 3 or 4 times a week), I loose internet completely, and the
>> router is unable to reconnect. It gets some error like "cant get ip
>> address" or something. The only solution is to unplug the router &
>> modem and plug them back in.
>
> If you are DSL, you may have a problem I encountered,
> in that I was at the exteme limit of the service (about
> 12,000 feet I believe). When upping my dsl speed, the modem
> started erroring out and resetting. When they dropped my speed
> back down, the problem went away. The explanation was that
> by doubling my speed, the errors to the modem increased
> exponentially. DSL does not care what or how much you
> downoad, as it is a dedicated line..
Er, not true - I don't know about the US, but here in the UK many DSL
providers *DO* limit downloads (e.g. BT's basic package (£14.99pcm, IIRC)
caps users at 2GBpcm - this is true for many ISPs in this country.) Even
those packages which state 'unlimited' are usually subject to a 'Fair Use'
policy (FUP) - for example my ISP lets me download as much as I like between
8am and 6pm during the working week, but caps downloads between 6pm and
midnight and weekends to 50GBpcm. I have never encountered a limit on uploads
but, then, I don't upload all that much (despite my ISP's assertions to the
contrary - the other day they accused me of uploading over half a terabyte in
a week - pure bullshit - even if I left a P2P app running 24/7 I'd nowhere
approach that in so short a time, I wouldn't have thought).
Though, as you say, I would have thought uploads would be capped, otherwise
people could upload anything and everything.
Roger
"Margolotta" <naggin...@thebackofyourmind.invalid> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C0E2462B...@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
> I have never encountered a limit on uploads
> but, then, I don't upload all that much
ISPs calculate both uploads and downloads into your useage limit.
If you download 2GB and upload 1GB, that would total 3GB of your monthly
useage.
Doz
Sounds like your router is failing to get a new IP off the ISP's system..
Maybe if you supplied more info we could help you out a little more.
Eg. Make, model of router.. how it's wired up etc.
Mark McIntyre
<robertb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hey there,
>
>Want to know: is there some signal an ISP can send to your router that
>will disable it?
They could DOS it I guess, but that'd be fairly radical not to say
probably illegal. Otherwise, no.
>Some ISPs don't want their users sharing the
>internet,
TBH I've never heard of one that actually cared, despite contractual
notes - they're selling you fixed bandwidth by and large, they don't
care what you do with it, inside their acceptable usage policy.
>and I've heard rumours that there is actually some sort of
>signal they can send out to disable the internet on their routers.
FUD.
>
>If so, this may be happening to me: I have a wireless router set up so
>I can have the internet in my living room, but every now and again
>(about 3 or 4 times a week), I loose internet completely,
Two possibilities: you have a flakey connection (ie your cable/phone
line is just a bit too poor quality) or you have a flakey router. My
old router started doing this, turned out to be a duff power supply.
Look out for patterns eg high usage, high temperatures, same time
every day - could be the ISPs server busying out due to excess of
students / schoolkids etc...
--
Mark McIntyre
Duane Arnold
> In article <1153201407....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> robertb...@gmail.com says...
> they provided it, they can also disable your connection at other
> locations.
>
> I've had ISP's disable users devices (ISP owned) because they were
> compromised.
>
Users should buy their own router and not accept the one the ISP owns or
can control. They should get one that is approved to run on the IPS's
network.
At one time, I was going to use DSL for hosting a WEB site. They hit me
with we have our router that we provide. I got on the phone with tech
support and found out what type/specs on the router that was needed to
connect to the ISP's network and got the information.
I never did buy the router and moved on to something else.
Duane :)
William P.N. Smith
>Want to know: is there some signal an ISP can send to your router that
>will disable it?
Well, yes and no and maybe. A couple of possibilities:
1) You are using BitTorrent or some other file-stealing program, and
your router can't handle the number of requested open sockets, so it
falls over. Well-nown problem, just starting to get some press, and
manufacturers are starting to deal with the problem with firmware
updates. Make sure you have the latest firmware, and tune your client
to reduce open sockets.
2) Some routers will fall over if sent particular packets, so someone
ould be sending your router one of these Pings Of Death. Unlikely to
be your ISP, though. Check for the latest firmware...
3) Your router (or your ISP's router) isn't properly negotiating a
DHCP renewal. Check your firmware.
4) Your ISP _is_ somehow detecting that you are doing Something Wrong,
and is disconnecting you. If this is true it shouldn't come back with
a power cycle, so I'd give it a low probability.
We need some more information:
Manufacturer, model, hardware version, and firmware of your router.
Name and location of your ISP, cable, DSL, fiber, wireless?
ISP DHCP lease time (from the status page on your router).
Router DHCP lease time from ipconfig/all
CWatters
"Rob" <robertb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153201407....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Hey there,
>
> Want to know: is there some signal an ISP can send to your router that
> will disable it? Some ISPs don't want their users sharing the
> internet, and I've heard rumours that there is actually some sort of
> signal they can send out to disable the internet on their routers.
You don't say who your ISP is but I think this problem isn't so common now.
No problem with Plusnet as far as I can tell.
Jerry Park
of the ISP breaking the connection in order to assign a new dynamic IP.
When I was using Charter for internet access, there were times the
connection would fail and it seemed to have originated from the ISP in
order to assign a new IP address.
If that is the case, you may have to restart your router in order to get
it to release its old IP address.
James
> Hey there,
>
> Want to know: is there some signal an ISP can send to your router that
> will disable it? Some ISPs don't want their users sharing the
> internet, and I've heard rumours that there is actually some sort of
> signal they can send out to disable the internet on their routers.
http://zapatopi.net/blog/?post=200511112730.afdb_effectiveness
>
> If so, this may be happening to me: I have a wireless router set up so
> I can have the internet in my living room, but every now and again
> (about 3 or 4 times a week), I loose internet completely, and the
> router is unable to reconnect. It gets some error like "cant get ip
> address" or something. The only solution is to unplug the router &
> modem and plug them back in.
>
> Anyone else ever heard of this? Any details you can point me to on
> this mysterious signal? Any details I can look up? Any solution to
> stop the drops anyone can offer?
Unplug both the router and xDSL modem from power. Enable the s/w firewall on
the PC. Connect the PC directly to the modem. Power up the modem. Configure
the PC connection if required.
Monitor the connection for 24-48 hours. If the condition persists, call MTS.
Jeff Liebermann
>Want to know: is there some signal an ISP can send to your router that
>will disable it? Some ISPs don't want their users sharing the
>internet, and I've heard rumours that there is actually some sort of
>signal they can send out to disable the internet on their routers.
Does your ISP charge by the number of connected computers? If so,
they might have a reason to do this. However, if they don't count
computers, why would they care if you're using a router?
The closest approximation was when Comcast and others wanted to charge
an extra $6/month for each connected computer for "residential" class
service. The NAT routers were assumed to be able to hide the presence
of additional computers. However, some research into sequence numbers
and traffic patterns showed that the number of machines behind the
firewall could be deduced. Comcast apparently used these and possibly
other methods to estimate the number of computers in use. They then
turned over the numbers to an obnoxious phone pool that called each
customer and demanded the extra $6 per month per machine. Consumer
reaction was predictable and the plan died after about 2 weeks.
Anyway, if your ISP wanted to retaliate against your sharing your
connection with the neighbors, they would probably persue legal
remedies and not technical measures.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Steve Berry
[snip]
> The closest approximation was when Comcast and others wanted to charge
> an extra $6/month for each connected computer for "residential" class
> service. The NAT routers were assumed to be able to hide the presence
> of additional computers. However, some research into sequence numbers
> and traffic patterns showed that the number of machines behind the
> firewall could be deduced. Comcast apparently used these and possibly
> other methods to estimate the number of computers in use. They then
> turned over the numbers to an obnoxious phone pool that called each
> customer and demanded the extra $6 per month per machine. Consumer
> reaction was predictable and the plan died after about 2 weeks.
Now that is interesting. Never ceases to amaze me how stupid ISPs are
sometimes. Fairly pointless exercise number 5243.
Did no-one think that Customers would "depart the ship" when they found out
?
One way to dump your Customers off to the opposition I guess.
S
Gaz
You and about 75% of other router users. Most of the routers available use a
conexant chipset and are, to be frank, pants. It is very very common to have
to do this, and nothing to do with the isp.
Gaz
Jeff Liebermann
It hasn't change much over the years. The current Comcast Terms of
Use limit their own "home networking" offering to 5 computers. See
the first section of:
http://www.comcast.net/terms/homenetworking.jsp
The Subscriber Agreement is hereby modified solely to permit you
to use the Service in connection with the multiple connection of
up to five (5) personal computing devices within your Premises
to the Service (the "Comcast Home Networking Service") etc...
I wonder what happens if you plug in the 6th computer? Ka-boom?
Gaz
That depends entirely on the particular ISP, some have extremely convulated
means of calculating usage, which seems to change on a month by month basis.
Gaz
David Wade
>
> Want to know: is there some signal an ISP can send to your router that
> will disable it? Some ISPs don't want their users sharing the
> internet, and I've heard rumours that there is actually some sort of
> signal they can send out to disable the internet on their routers.
>
Since ADSl routers and Ethernet modems use basically the same chip set and
software I guess this is "Urban Myth and Legend". If you are daft enough to
leave RIP or one of the routing protocols enable I guess they couold mess up
the routing table, but thats easily sorted...
> If so, this may be happening to me: I have a wireless router set up so
> I can have the internet in my living room, but every now and again
> (about 3 or 4 times a week), I loose internet completely, and the
> router is unable to reconnect. It gets some error like "cant get ip
> address" or something. The only solution is to unplug the router &
> modem and plug them back in.
>
This is fairly typical of behaviour in marginal service areas...
> Anyone else ever heard of this? Any details you can point me to on
> this mysterious signal? Any details I can look up? Any solution to
> stop the drops anyone can offer?
>
Look up how to check the attenuation and noise level figures in you router
then see if they are acceptable...
> Rob
>
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> writes:
> I wonder what happens if you plug in the 6th computer? Ka-boom?
Not that it really matters, but I don't think they can really tell how
many computers someone has if it is running a good OS that randomizes
initial sequence numbers, they use the same OS on all their computers
and their NAT allocates ports from the same ephemeral port range that
the OS uses when it opens an outgoing connection. There shouldn't be
any traffic difference between 4 people logged into one computer and 4
people on identical computers, nat-ed by the above computer.
(Of course, the real solution to dealing with an ISP that limits all
sorts of things that aren't any of their business is to just dump
them. There are still ISP's out there that effectively only limit
one's overall bandwidth usage and any anti-social behavior, like
spamming).
-wolfgang
--
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
Jeff Liebermann
<wolfgang+gnus2...@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com> wrote:
>
>Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> writes:
>> I wonder what happens if you plug in the 6th computer? Ka-boom?
>
>Not that it really matters, but I don't think they can really tell how
>many computers someone has if it is running a good OS that randomizes
>initial sequence numbers, they use the same OS on all their computers
>and their NAT allocates ports from the same ephemeral port range that
>the OS uses when it opens an outgoing connection.
Well, there's more exposed on the WAN side than just sequence numbers.
The TCP time stamp can be used:
http://pjf.jogger.pl/2006/03/28/ttmap-v.-0.1-pre/
http://www.phrack.org/show.php?p=63&a=3 (search for 0x03-2 section)
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/fnat.pdf
I can assure you that whatever Comcast was doing, it worked well
onough at the time with conventional consumer routers.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Steve Berry
> I wonder what happens if you plug in the 6th computer? Ka-boom?
Not alot if you turn off the 5th beforehand ?? ;)
Wonder how that would work if you placed another level of NAT indirection
between the router and the internal kit ??
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
I can understand the rationale based on bandwidth arguments perhaps or ISP
tiered-service levels and it may have worked if all ISPs thought the same
way. Thankfully they don't. To be honest, that's something I've never had to
check up on. Maybe I'm pissing off my ISP.
Do they know ? Do they care ? What's the meaning of life etc...??
Rgds, S
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>> I wonder what happens if you plug in the 6th computer? Ka-boom?
>Not alot if you turn off the 5th beforehand ?? ;)
Let's just say I have a thing about unenforceable rules and contract
provisions. Trust by verify?
>Wonder how that would work if you placed another level of NAT indirection
>between the router and the internal kit ??
The TCP timestamp originates from the client computers are transparent
to any number of NAT routers. However, if the ISP is using sequence
numbers or IP socket ranges to guess the number of machines, the 2nd
router would do a very effective job of hiding the clients. Everything
to the main NAT router would appear to be coming from a single IP
address (the 2nd NAT router).
>I can understand the rationale based on bandwidth arguments perhaps or ISP
>tiered-service levels and it may have worked if all ISPs thought the same
>way. Thankfully they don't.
I'm a big fan of metered service. I don't like subsidizing someone
else file sharing habit.
>To be honest, that's something I've never had to
>check up on. Maybe I'm pissing off my ISP.
Well, that's easy enough. Just call your ISP's support department and
ask them if they're angry at you. That should break the monotony of
their day.
>Do they know ?
Oh yes. Many ISP's do detailed traffic analysis to detect abuse.
Individual users are not tracked unless the ISP suspects suspicious or
criminal activity. However, to maintain privacy, the records and
output are usually vaporized before the friendly and helpful
government can confiscate them.
>Do they care ?
About abuse? Yes. About what you do on the internet, no.
>What's the meaning of life etc...??
42.
Duane Arnold
> In article <0R3vg.9757$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Do
> forget about it"@PleaeDo.BET says...
> router, as they can just block access from your device at their
> equipment.
>
If they did that, then I would just find another ISP. Of course, the
router is mine. I would have my own modem too. But some users are stuck
with a limited number of ISP(s) and cannot do that.
Duane :)
Steve Berry
news:m4nqb29lh7bmj2r04...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:44:44 GMT, "Steve Berry" <reac...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> I wonder what happens if you plug in the 6th computer? Ka-boom?
>
>>Not alot if you turn off the 5th beforehand ?? ;)
>
> Let's just say I have a thing about unenforceable rules and contract
> provisions. Trust by verify?
Think I know you well enough by now to trust you on that one. ;)
Besides I don't like exploding computers. Call me a party pooper if you
wish.
>
>>Wonder how that would work if you placed another level of NAT indirection
>>between the router and the internal kit ??
>
> The TCP timestamp originates from the client computers are transparent
> to any number of NAT routers.
Oh bugger !
> However, if the ISP is using sequence
> numbers or IP socket ranges to guess the number of machines, the 2nd
> router would do a very effective job of hiding the clients. Everything
> to the main NAT router would appear to be coming from a single IP
> address (the 2nd NAT router).
So much for the chain of 35 routers in my bedrrom theory. ;)
>
>>I can understand the rationale based on bandwidth arguments perhaps or ISP
>>tiered-service levels and it may have worked if all ISPs thought the same
>>way. Thankfully they don't.
>
> I'm a big fan of metered service. I don't like subsidizing someone
> else file sharing habit.
The only really fair way I guess.
>
>>To be honest, that's something I've never had to
>>check up on. Maybe I'm pissing off my ISP.
>
> Well, that's easy enough. Just call your ISP's support department and
> ask them if they're angry at you. That should break the monotony of
> their day.
Time to check the T&Cs first. Unfortunately my ISPs Support team seem to
know less about their network than I do ( and that's saying something ).
>
>>Do they know ?
>
> Oh yes. Many ISP's do detailed traffic analysis to detect abuse.
> Individual users are not tracked unless the ISP suspects suspicious or
> criminal activity. However, to maintain privacy, the records and
> output are usually vaporized before the friendly and helpful
> government can confiscate them.
>
Dunno' what a friendly Govt is.
Seem to remember there's some fairly recent legislative effort here in the
UK to maintain user based ISP-Net activity logs for a period of X years
apparently justified around the Prevention Of Terrorism Act. Not really my
bag but a fairly obvious Avenue for them to go down.
>>Do they care ?
>
> About abuse? Yes. About what you do on the internet, no.
>
>>What's the meaning of life etc...??
>
> 42.
Always thought it was 43 - darn it - wrong again.
Thanks for the insight Jeff.
>
> --
> # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
> # 831-336-2558 je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> # http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
> # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Cheers, S
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>> Let's just say I have a thing about unenforceable rules and contract
>> provisions. Trust by verify?
>
>Think I know you well enough by now to trust you on that one. ;)
Oops. It's "trust but verify". Gotta work on the proofreading.
"Trust me". It worked for Jimmy Carter.
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/3/newsid_3652000/3652348.stm
>Time to check the T&Cs first. Unfortunately my ISPs Support team seem to
>know less about their network than I do ( and that's saying something ).
No need to call support. We have the top 10 boiler plate answers for
wireless problems. One of them is sure to work:
| http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Fast_Fixes_to_Wi-Fi_Problems#Top_Ten_Fixes_to_Wi-Fi_Problems
>>>What's the meaning of life etc...??
>>
>> 42.
>
>Always thought it was 43 - darn it - wrong again.
>Thanks for the insight Jeff.
The meaning of life is 42. See:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything
William P.N. Smith
>I can assure you that whatever Comcast was doing, it worked well
>onough at the time with conventional consumer routers.
Where "well enough" was defined by some PHB to mean "sufficient to
develop a new way to piss off our customers"? 8*)
Steve Berry
> |
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything
>
Not for me-it's 69 <G>.
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> writes:
> I can assure you that whatever Comcast was doing, it worked well
> onough at the time with conventional consumer routers.
Oh, I'm not doubting that at all. If someone silly was skirting the
rules there are dozens of ways they can give themselves away. The
simplest is the "browser-name, version, OS name and version" string
that browsers send with every query. Count unique strings and you
have the number of computers.
(Someone from the Chaff School of Countermeasures might be tempted to
round-robin over every imaginable string and wonder if their automatic
tools will flag the site as having 12,456 hosts and try to bill
accordingly.)
> Well, there's more exposed on the WAN side than just sequence numbers.
> The TCP time stamp can be used:
Thanks for the links. I'd forgotten entirely about Bellovin's NAT
paper and the TCP timestamps. (I do recall at the time thinking it
was an awful lot of effort to hide something that was immaterial and I
didn't pay much attention to all that stuff past that.)
Hitting up google to see what I missed, it looks like both can be
dealt with in the kernel if the OS writers care to. The IP id leak
can be solved completely and the TCP timestamp partially. I believe
Openbsd randomizes the IP id, and modulates the TCP timestamp.
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2004/04/15/pf_developers.html
MF: Stateful TCP normalization is a set of techniques to remove or
resolve ambiguities in network traffic. One of the techniques most
important to the average user is TCP timestamp modulation. Most
operating systems with high performance networking include a
timestamp in every TCP packet.
Since that timer starts ticking when the machine was booted, a
server (or anyone in between) can look at a packet and know the
machine's uptime. An attacker could look at a machine's responses
to know it hasn't been rebooting since the last patch came out so
it is probably still vulnerable. Alternately a stingy internet
service provider that charges extra for home networks can look at
all of the timestamps coming from a link and count the number of
NATted machines by the number of unique timestamps. The PF
firewall can scramble both uptime calculation and NAT detection by
modulating the timestamps with a random number. There are a
variety of other normalization techniques done and others still in
development. #
If I were trying to hide my machines, turning off the optional tcp
timestamps would be the most expedient way to keep any information
from leaking at all.
Moe Trin
<87slky3...@bonnet.wsrcc.com>, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
>Not that it really matters, but I don't think they can really tell how
>many computers someone has if it is running a good OS that randomizes
>initial sequence numbers, they use the same OS on all their computers
>and their NAT allocates ports from the same ephemeral port range that
>the OS uses when it opens an outgoing connection. There shouldn't be
>any traffic difference between 4 people logged into one computer and 4
>people on identical computers, nat-ed by the above computer.
0791 Internet Protocol. J. Postel. September 1981. (Format: TXT=97779
bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0760) (Updated by RFC1349) (Also STD0005)
(Status: STANDARD)
0793 Transmission Control Protocol. J. Postel. September 1981.
(Format: TXT=172710 bytes) (Updated by RFC3168) (Also STD0007)
(Status: STANDARD)
Each of those standards has a minimum 20 byte (and maximum of 60 bytes) in
the headers, Looking at IP, if you want to establish a connection with some
other host out there, 15 of those 20 bytes MUST be so. TCP only has 28 bits
that must be exactly so. The problem is those other bits/bytes.
In spite of the standards shown above, every #### programmer that gets to
play near the network stack has his own interpretation of the standards. And
this is what allows fingerprinting a remote system that only sends one SYN
packet. Any competent tool can do that. It's bad enough with competently
written operating systems, but things really go downhill when microsoft
gets involved. The tool I'm using right now has NINE GHODD4MN FINGERPRINTS
FOR XP _ALONE_ (you can easily tell the service packs as one example).
Lest someone think I'm bashing microsoft and there incompetent programmers,
my tool is aware of no less that four fingerprints for Cisco routers, and
four more for OpenBSD (and 13 for FreeBSD, 6 for NetBSD, and so on).
A few years ago, Friday, October 14 was World Standards Day -- in
*some* countries. In America, it was observed on October 11th. In
Finland, it was marked on October 13th. Italy planned a separate
conference on standards for October 18th. -- after Shakib Otaqui
Isn't life so simple ;-)
Old guy
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht
ibup...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> In spite of the standards shown above, every #### programmer that gets to
> play near the network stack has his own interpretation of the standards. And
> this is what allows fingerprinting a remote system that only sends one SYN
> packet.
Yes, that's a given. That is also why I said "computers running the
same OS". Someone that is going to cheat on the rules should at least
try to do a good job at making all the computers look the same from
the network. Then they only have to worry about synchronizing the
hard things (like the tcp clock used in timestamps). Not sure why
pf's NAT doesn't just adjust the timestamps to all have the same
baseline.
chris
> Hey there,
>
> Want to know: is there some signal an ISP can send to your router that
> will disable it? Some ISPs don't want their users sharing the
> internet, and I've heard rumours that there is actually some sort of
> signal they can send out to disable the internet on their routers.
>
> If so, this may be happening to me: I have a wireless router set up so
> I can have the internet in my living room, but every now and again
> (about 3 or 4 times a week), I loose internet completely, and the
> router is unable to reconnect. It gets some error like "cant get ip
> address" or something. The only solution is to unplug the router &
> modem and plug them back in.
>
> Anyone else ever heard of this? Any details you can point me to on
> this mysterious signal? Any details I can look up? Any solution to
> stop the drops anyone can offer?
>
>
Hi Rob,
The problem with routers and service providers stems from the routers
ability to check/renew its lease in timing intervals, routers have been
known to deny their own service due to inefficient dhcp client.
Routers also have tendencies to overheat and often at that, the more you
do and the longer its on are not helpful for its cpu, take a look at a
cisco device for example - if you over utilize the cpu the potential for
hanging the device is great causing a denial of service.
It helps to have more ram for queue space inside the device to handle
the packet transmission, improper non matching MTU sizes - lots of small
packets - mixes of jumbo packets can cause problems (someone has to
break them up somewhere and sequence them)
The problems with routers lie in the device itself, firmware can fix a
fair amount of problems however device construction and protocol
limiting can also help even further.
If you were to setup a personal linux router i bet you the chances of
powercycling the home built router are nil if you don't use the machine
for personal :) - at least in my experience.
Hope this helps,
Chris
William P.N. Smith
>the network.
There's a very limited market demand for computers that don't let on
how many they are and a much greater demand for computers that do what
you tell them to. IMHO, the developers should spend more time making
them work, and less time adding (mostly) useless features.
Yeah, Micro$oft is the worst offender, but no-one else is perfect...
Derek Broughton
>
> Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> writes:
>> I wonder what happens if you plug in the 6th computer? Ka-boom?
>
> Not that it really matters, but I don't think they can really tell how
> many computers someone has if it is running a good OS that randomizes
> initial sequence numbers,
All that's interesting - and no doubt correct - but ISPs _can_ limit the
number of connections you can make. Typically browsers are able to make
4-10 connections concurrently. My plan with my ISP doesn't limit the
number of computers I use, but _does_ limit me to 10 concurrent
connections. Given that I personally could be using 1 for NNTP, 1 for
POP/IMAP, 4 for a browser, and my router would be doing (at least) NTP and
DNS, there isn't a lot left over for anyone else :-)
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> "Jeff Liebermann" <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:m4nqb29lh7bmj2r04...@4ax.com...
>> I'm a big fan of metered service. I don't like subsidizing someone
>> else file sharing habit.
>
> The only really fair way I guess.
I suppose it _could_ be. If it was handled more fairly. My ISP limits me
to 160MB daily, before slowing the flow to a trickle. I'm sure many people
get their 160MB every day. I'd like to get a full CD once every 6 months
or so - which just isn't possible, unless I use a restartable download
program, and fetch 120MB, or so, every day for 5+ days.
>>
>> Oh yes. Many ISP's do detailed traffic analysis to detect abuse.
>> Individual users are not tracked unless the ISP suspects suspicious or
>> criminal activity. However, to maintain privacy, the records and
>> output are usually vaporized before the friendly and helpful
>> government can confiscate them.
>>
>
> Dunno' what a friendly Govt is.
> Seem to remember there's some fairly recent legislative effort here in the
> UK to maintain user based ISP-Net activity logs for a period of X years
> apparently justified around the Prevention Of Terrorism Act. Not really my
> bag but a fairly obvious Avenue for them to go down.
I think that's exactly what Jeff was talking about...
--
derek
Jeff Liebermann
>Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
>
>>
>> Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> writes:
>>> I wonder what happens if you plug in the 6th computer? Ka-boom?
>>
>> Not that it really matters, but I don't think they can really tell how
>> many computers someone has if it is running a good OS that randomizes
>> initial sequence numbers,
>All that's interesting - and no doubt correct - but ISPs _can_ limit the
>number of connections you can make. Typically browsers are able to make
>4-10 connections concurrently.
Firefox:
Punch into URL box:
about:config
Manually scroll down to (search doesn't work):
network.http.max-connections-per-server
Mine is at the default of 8
IE has "MaxConnectionsPerServer" buried in the registry somewhere,
which is usually set to 4.
>My plan with my ISP doesn't limit the
>number of computers I use, but _does_ limit me to 10 concurrent
>connections. Given that I personally could be using 1 for NNTP, 1 for
>POP/IMAP, 4 for a browser, and my router would be doing (at least) NTP and
>DNS, there isn't a lot left over for anyone else :-)
Ummm... it appears that your ISP is limiting the number of "services"
(outgoing IP ports) and not the number of "connections" (unique
connected IP addresses). I can't really be sure, but it looks like
they just limit the number of outgoing IP ports you can open through
their gateway router. 10 is very few and severely limiting.
Who's the ISP? Is it by IP or port number? How does it work? What
happens when you go over? Client side filtering in the satellite
router or at the ISP's router? If you hit a web page with a mess of
off-site links, does it increment the count?
10 is really limiting. From my W2K box:
C:\>netstat -an | find "ESTABLISHED" | find /V "127.0.0.1"
TCP 192.168.1.11:1029 72.58.89.48:36984 ESTABLISHED
TCP 192.168.1.11:1074 205.188.7.138:5190 ESTABLISHED
(a bunch deleted)
TCP 192.168.1.11:1307 12.120.45.14:80 ESTABLISHED
TCP 192.168.1.11:1309 12.120.45.14:80 ESTABLISHED
Mine shows about 20 outgoing port numbers with just 3 browser
sessions, plus AIM and Skype. Do you pay money to have the ISP do
this to you?
remote cuntroll
>
> I have never encountered a limit on uploads
> contrary - the other day they accused me of uploading over half a terabyte in
> a week
You must have sent a picture of yourself off somewhere. You see, you
are so damned fat that even just a picture of you strains any lisp's
bandWIDTH (major emphasis on WIDTH)!!!
> - pure bullshit -
Yes it is pure, unadulterated bullshit that you have sponged off of your
parents and the welfare system for your entire life as you sit around
the house. I do mean literally AROUND the house!
> I wouldn't have thought).
Noone wants or expects your thoughts. Unfortunately, you spew your
negativity all over usenet anyway.
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht
Derek Broughton <ne...@pointerstop.ca> writes:
> All that's interesting - and no doubt correct - but ISPs _can_ limit the
> number of connections you can make. Typically browsers are able to make
> 4-10 connections concurrently. My plan with my ISP doesn't limit the
> number of computers I use, but _does_ limit me to 10 concurrent
> connections. Given that I personally could be using 1 for NNTP, 1 for
> POP/IMAP, 4 for a browser, and my router would be doing (at least) NTP and
> DNS, there isn't a lot left over for anyone else :-)
That is the first time I've ever heard of that. Any idea how they
enforce that? Sounds almost as disruptive to tcp connections as that
stupid belkin router that would intercept random tcp connections to
port 80 and start an interactive dialog.
BTW. What is a dns or ntp "connection" and how is it counted?
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht
William P.N. Smith <news...@compusmiths.com> writes:
> IMHO, the developers should spend more time making them work, and
> less time adding (mostly) useless features.
Most of the developers doing the interesting work (and the ones
publishing the papers) are all doing it because it pleases them. In
case you didn't read the papers Jeff cited, the fixes for hiding the
number of machines behind a NAT tend to also be fixes that harden
connections against injection/spoofing hacks. Those fixes help anyone
that is connected to the internet.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| back down, the problem went away. The explanation was that
| by doubling my speed, the errors to the modem increased
| exponentially. DSL does not care what or how much you
If speed doubling does not involve new technology to be just as immune
to noise, then you are basically going to take a greater noise hit.
As the speed increases, the rate of retransmissions goes up faster
and at some point the net increase in total capacity goes back down.
If you are getting 384kb from 768kb service, that does not mean you
will get 768kb from 1536kb service. You could very well get less
or even nothing from 1536kb service. I would have hoped the DSL
technology would adapt to line conditions. But it seems the phone
execs would rather use this as a means to squeeze more revenue out.
| downoad, as it is a dedicated line... many of the cable companies
| are now limiting uploads to a gigabyte a month or whatever.
I can do twice that over a dialup just during the overnight.
But the phone company does care about usage, too. While you might have
dedicated bandwidth up to the DSLAM, it's shared beyond that point with
everyone on the same DSLAM and maybe on others, too. If 10 customers
are downloading the latest hit movie release, it could affect everyone
else.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-200...@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
phil-new...@ipal.net
Are they running everything through some proxy server? I can see them
wanting to make a connection limit if all the connections are going via
their HTTP proxy.
More likely it's a clueless manager (ever notice how those two words seem
to always be together) deciding this is a great way to keep the trunk
circuits from being overloaded.
I wonder what they would do with SCTP, which is roughly speaking "TCP on
steroids". If used for HTTP it could provide all the concurrent trafffic
you need with one web server in a single "connection". It has the ability
to utilize subchannels.
No need to google:
http://tdrwww.exp-math.uni-essen.de/inhalt/forschung/sctp_fb/index.html
http://tdrwww.exp-math.uni-essen.de/inhalt/forschung/sctp_fb/sctp_api.html
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-sctp/?ca=dgr-lnxw01SCTP
http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~dunigan/netperf/sctp.html
http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man7/sctp.7.html
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-12.txt
http://www.sctp.be/
http://www.sctp.de/sctp.html
http://www.sctp.org/
Toolman Tim
> Rôgęr <ab...@your.isp.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I google "Silver Bullet", but I can't find anything relating to
>>>> cable companies...what are you talking about?
>>>
>>> Back a few years ago, people were buying illegal boxes that were
>>> set to pick up all channels. Perhaps it was satellite instead of
>>> cable
>
> Satellite, and called black sunday (cause they turn'd it off during
> much anticipated foot ball game)
Damn! That's downright un-civilized <g>
--
When I was a child, I remember my Mom telling me, "Son, when you grow
up, you can marry any girl you please." When I became a young man, I
learned the sad fact was that I could not please any of them.
Moe Trin
>ibup...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
>> And this is what allows fingerprinting a remote system that only sends one
>> SYN packet.
>Yes, that's a given. That is also why I said "computers running the
>same OS". Someone that is going to cheat on the rules should at least
>try to do a good job at making all the computers look the same from
>the network.
Wed Jul 19 10:02:46 2006> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:3788 - Windows XP, 2000 SP2+ (NAT!)
-> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:445 (distance 3, link: (Google/AOL))
Wed Jul 19 10:02:56 2006> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:3788 - Windows XP/2000 while
downloading (leak!) -> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:445 (distance 3, link: (Google/AOL))
Some id10t with his windoze boxen down the street, wanting to share. The
'Google/AOL' means an MTU of 1400.
The code detects NAT devices that do not rewrite packets (almost
all packet firewalls). Ones that do rewrite packets (proxy firewalls)
can, on the other hand, be detected by their own signatures.
Masquerade detection will fail if all systems masqueraded have an
identical configuration and network setup, uptimes and network usage
(which is very unlikely, even in a homogeneous environment). A
prerequisite for detection is that the systems are used at (roughly) the
same time, within the cache time frame.
>Then they only have to worry about synchronizing the hard things (like
>the tcp clock used in timestamps). Not sure why pf's NAT doesn't just
>adjust the timestamps to all have the same baseline.
I'm not sure why they don't just strip the stupid thing off. It's an
option, not a requirement. The box doing the NAT can add it back on to
the returning box. Likewise, the NAT box could timestamp echo any incoming
stuff as needed. In spite of RFC1323, they're not going to cause the
Internet to explode if they're faked at the NAT-box.
Old guy
donna
night, I tried many different fixes, nothing worked, then i just got a
new modem and the peoblem went away.
Donna
John Navas
<je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<m4nqb29lh7bmj2r04...@4ax.com>:
>I'm a big fan of metered service. I don't like subsidizing someone
>else file sharing habit.
Likewise. Allocates resources efficiently. But I think "fair use"
throttling is more practical in today's market.
>>Do they know ?
>
>Oh yes. Many ISP's do detailed traffic analysis to detect abuse.
>Individual users are not tracked unless the ISP suspects suspicious or
>criminal activity. However, to maintain privacy, the records and
>output are usually vaporized before the friendly and helpful
>government can confiscate them.
Not necessarily. Many ISPs (here in the USA at least) keep records of
the top few percent of consumers of network capacity for a variety of
reasons:
* Network protection
* Interference with other customers
* Likelihood of unlawful activity
* Risk of ISP blacklisting
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Jeff Liebermann
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:17:15 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
><je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
><m4nqb29lh7bmj2r04...@4ax.com>:
>
>>I'm a big fan of metered service. I don't like subsidizing someone
>>else file sharing habit.
>
>Likewise. Allocates resources efficiently. But I think "fair use"
>throttling is more practical in today's market.
Maybe. I prefer the pay-per-view model. I would pay monthly for the
service and the total bytes moved. However, if I need a faster
connection for a specific ocassion (i.e. Victoria's Secret Fashion
Show video feed), I should be able to go to the ISP's web pile, and
order a temporary bandwidth boost. This also solves the problem for
some of my customers that are only at home perhaps 6 months of the
year, but are paying flat rate for broadband year round.
This is fairly easy to do with DOCSIS and Wireless but a total pain
with DSL thanks to the ISP not being in control of the DSLAM. I dunno
about satellite.
John Navas
<je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<eugvb2pndda4agd7l...@4ax.com>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:17:15 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
>><je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
>><m4nqb29lh7bmj2r04...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>I'm a big fan of metered service. I don't like subsidizing someone
>>>else file sharing habit.
>>
>>Likewise. Allocates resources efficiently. But I think "fair use"
>>throttling is more practical in today's market.
>
>Maybe. I prefer the pay-per-view model. I would pay monthly for the
>service and the total bytes moved.
One problem is that so much of the traffic is out of your control,
especially with graphics-heavy web sites that expect you to be on
unlimited broadband.
Another common problem is the lack of good usage monitoring -- most
people don't want unpleasant surprises in their bills.
>However, if I need a faster
>connection for a specific ocassion (i.e. Victoria's Secret Fashion
>Show video feed), I should be able to go to the ISP's web pile, and
>order a temporary bandwidth boost. This also solves the problem for
>some of my customers that are only at home perhaps 6 months of the
>year, but are paying flat rate for broadband year round.
>
>This is fairly easy to do with DOCSIS and Wireless but a total pain
>with DSL thanks to the ISP not being in control of the DSLAM. ...
Should pretty easy to do with PPPoE -- different connections for
different speeds.
Alex Fraser
news:c4ovb2t8m4q1t5pgt...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:01:31 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
> <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
> <eugvb2pndda4agd7l...@4ax.com>:
>>Maybe. I prefer the pay-per-view model. I would pay monthly for the
>>service and the total bytes moved.
>
> One problem is that so much of the traffic is out of your control,
> especially with graphics-heavy web sites that expect you to be on
> unlimited broadband.
Even graphics-heavy websites aren't that much traffic compared to downloads,
are they? Serious question - do you know of any studies?
> Another common problem is the lack of good usage monitoring -- most
> people don't want unpleasant surprises in their bills.
I don't see why an ISP that meters usage should have any trouble allowing
customers to read their meter.
>>However, if I need a faster
>>connection for a specific ocassion (i.e. Victoria's Secret Fashion
>>Show video feed), I should be able to go to the ISP's web pile, and
>>order a temporary bandwidth boost. This also solves the problem for
>>some of my customers that are only at home perhaps 6 months of the
>>year, but are paying flat rate for broadband year round.
>>
>>This is fairly easy to do with DOCSIS and Wireless but a total pain
>>with DSL thanks to the ISP not being in control of the DSLAM. ...
It may interest you both to know that my ISP (Eclipse, in the UK) provide an
ADSL service exactly as Jeff Liebermann described. The ADSL link runs at the
fastest rate the line will manage, with rate limiting (AFAIK) applied by the
ISP. By visiting the website, you can increase/remove the rate limit for a
certain period of time at a given cost per hour. This is on top of a flat
charge according to the "base" rate limit.
This service is no longer available to new customers, however. I guess the
idea never caught on, as I am not aware of any other ISPs offering a
comparable service, but I believe there have been changes in how ISPs are
charged by the telephone company which may also have influenced the decision
to withdraw the service.
Alex
John Navas
in <dcOdnTJeQ5nCYiLZ...@eclipse.net.uk>:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:c4ovb2t8m4q1t5pgt...@4ax.com...
>> One problem is that so much of the traffic is out of your control,
>> especially with graphics-heavy web sites that expect you to be on
>> unlimited broadband.
>
>Even graphics-heavy websites aren't that much traffic compared to downloads,
>are they? Serious question - do you know of any studies?
I know from measuring it myself that such websites can easily rack up a
surprisingly large amount of traffic.
>> Another common problem is the lack of good usage monitoring -- most
>> people don't want unpleasant surprises in their bills.
>
>I don't see why an ISP that meters usage should have any trouble allowing
>customers to read their meter.
It's a support nightmare for the ISP dealing with all the "I didn't do
anything, but my meter went way up!" complaints by unsophisticated
users. And unhappy customers do not a good business make.
Jeff Liebermann
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>Maybe. I prefer the pay-per-view model. I would pay monthly for the
>>service and the total bytes moved.
>One problem is that so much of the traffic is out of your control,
>especially with graphics-heavy web sites that expect you to be on
>unlimited broadband.
I think that's intentional. Give them the applications and the
bandwidth will follow. I'm not sure it's true or even possible, but
that seems to be the current fashion.
>Another common problem is the lack of good usage monitoring -- most
>people don't want unpleasant surprises in their bills.
The same web page used to order more bandwidth will also display the
running total for the month. That's mandatory for any kind of metered
system. The customer needs to know their usage.
>>This is fairly easy to do with DOCSIS and Wireless but a total pain
>>with DSL thanks to the ISP not being in control of the DSLAM. ...
>Should pretty easy to do with PPPoE -- different connections for
>different speeds.
Good idea. That will work.
Jeff Liebermann
>It may interest you both to know that my ISP (Eclipse, in the UK) provide an
>ADSL service exactly as Jeff Liebermann described. The ADSL link runs at the
>fastest rate the line will manage, with rate limiting (AFAIK) applied by the
>ISP. By visiting the website, you can increase/remove the rate limit for a
>certain period of time at a given cost per hour. This is on top of a flat
>charge according to the "base" rate limit.
Neato. At least they tried. I don't think it makes much sense with
DSL or DOCSIS where lifting the cap temporarily is more of a luxury
than a necessity. However, in services where the system capacity is
severely limited by the backhaul or available shared bandwidth, such
as wireless networks, cellular networks, and satellite networks, this
feature can make internet access more bearable. Methinks it might
have worked had it not been on DSL or DOCSIS cable.
When I was involved in an 802.11b based wireless ISP, we were going to
impliment such a system in order to deal with the bandwidth abusers
while offering "burstable" service to compensate for a draconian rate
cap. It was never actually deployed.
>This service is no longer available to new customers, however. I guess the
>idea never caught on, as I am not aware of any other ISPs offering a
>comparable service, but I believe there have been changes in how ISPs are
>charged by the telephone company which may also have influenced the decision
>to withdraw the service.
Bummer. This is the first and only such user controlled "burstable"
service that I know of.
John Navas
<je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<p8s0c21ju4ia9rbrv...@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:10:32 +0100, "Alex Fraser" <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>It may interest you both to know that my ISP (Eclipse, in the UK) provide an
>>ADSL service exactly as Jeff Liebermann described. The ADSL link runs at the
>>fastest rate the line will manage, with rate limiting (AFAIK) applied by the
>>ISP. By visiting the website, you can increase/remove the rate limit for a
>>certain period of time at a given cost per hour. This is on top of a flat
>>charge according to the "base" rate limit.
>
>Neato. At least they tried. I don't think it makes much sense with
>DSL or DOCSIS where lifting the cap temporarily is more of a luxury
>than a necessity. However, in services where the system capacity is
>severely limited by the backhaul or available shared bandwidth, such
>as wireless networks, cellular networks, and satellite networks, this
>feature can make internet access more bearable. Methinks it might
>have worked had it not been on DSL or DOCSIS cable.
>
>When I was involved in an 802.11b based wireless ISP, we were going to
>impliment such a system in order to deal with the bandwidth abusers
>while offering "burstable" service to compensate for a draconian rate
>cap. It was never actually deployed.
I think you're missing some key factors in consumer broadband:
1. The affordable consumer broadband business model is based on bursty
traffic, permitting backhaul circuits to be heavily oversold. Consumers
who max their connections 24x7 (can you say "illicit file sharing"?)
break that model, raising costs for everyone else.
2. ISPs also keep costs low by combining download-heavy consumer use
with upload-heavy hosting use. When consumers engage in heavy uploading
(can you again say "illicit file sharing"?), that business model breaks
down.
3. Worse, upstream congestion of asymmetrical networks can bring
downstream down to a crawl.
These are all very good reasons for throttling and/or bandwidth on
demand.
John Navas
<je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<sor0c21m33gld03hm...@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:02:40 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>Maybe. I prefer the pay-per-view model. I would pay monthly for the
>>>service and the total bytes moved.
>
>>One problem is that so much of the traffic is out of your control,
>>especially with graphics-heavy web sites that expect you to be on
>>unlimited broadband.
>
>I think that's intentional. Give them the applications and the
>bandwidth will follow. I'm not sure it's true or even possible, but
>that seems to be the current fashion.
I don't think it's anywhere near that clever or sophisticated -- I think
it's simply based on simple assumptions of coolness and all-you-can-eat
pricing.
>>Another common problem is the lack of good usage monitoring -- most
>>people don't want unpleasant surprises in their bills.
>
>The same web page used to order more bandwidth will also display the
>running total for the month. That's mandatory for any kind of metered
>system. The customer needs to know their usage.
One nasty surprise and the customer may be gone forever, so it actually
needs to be way better than that, ideally some sort of sophisticated
on-screen display showing current and projected usage, with clear
warning levels. Some of the better connection meters can do a fairly
decent job of that, but they still need to be tightly integrated into
the Internet connection and fully refined.
John Navas
<god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<fct1c21nfj3n7g475...@4ax.com>:
>All ISPs have limits on how much you can download before being shaped.
>...
That's not true in the USA -- DSL services with no limits or shaping are
common, including offerings by AT&T (SBC) and its resellers (e.g.,
Sonic.net).
Mark McIntyre
OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You must be very old. Nobody uses feet these days.
Eh? around 250 million people use feet as their daily measure of
length, and probably another 50 million think that way.
--
Mark McIntyre
Allan
"Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:2392c25ehffl1u006...@4ax.com...
He means they use cars.
Allan
clot
> Hiya Barry OGrady.
>
> In <news:fct1c21nfj3n7g475...@4ax.com> you wrote:
>
>> You must be very old. Nobody uses feet these days.
>
:)
Ivor Jones
news:44c15715$0$22106$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net
> "Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@spamcop.net> wrote in
> message news:2392c25ehffl1u006...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:44:52 +1000, in
> > alt.internet.wireless , Barry OGrady
> > <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You must be very old. Nobody uses feet these days.
> >
> > Eh? around 250 million people use feet as their daily
> > measure of length, and probably another 50 million
> > think that way.
>
How do they get to their cars from their doors..?
Ivor
John Navas
<iv...@despammed.invalid> wrote in <4id7q6F...@individual.net>:
They live in them. :)
Danone@bt.com Pier Danone
"Ivor Jones" <iv...@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4id7q6F...@individual.net...
Drive through Doctors Practice. You turn up at the first window, then pick up
your perscription from the second.
chris
> Rob wrote:
>> Hey there,
>>
>> Want to know: is there some signal an ISP can send to your router that
>> will disable it? Some ISPs don't want their users sharing the
>> internet, and I've heard rumours that there is actually some sort of
>> signal they can send out to disable the internet on their routers.
>>
>> If so, this may be happening to me: I have a wireless router set up so
>> I can have the internet in my living room, but every now and again
>> (about 3 or 4 times a week), I loose internet completely, and the
>> router is unable to reconnect. It gets some error like "cant get ip
>> address" or something. The only solution is to unplug the router &
>> modem and plug them back in.
>>
>> this mysterious signal? Any details I can look up? Any solution to
>> stop the drops anyone can offer?
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> The problem with routers and service providers stems from the routers
> ability to check/renew its lease in timing intervals, routers have been
> known to deny their own service due to inefficient dhcp client.
>
> Routers also have tendencies to overheat and often at that, the more you
> do and the longer its on are not helpful for its cpu, take a look at a
> cisco device for example - if you over utilize the cpu the potential for
> hanging the device is great causing a denial of service.
>
> It helps to have more ram for queue space inside the device to handle
> the packet transmission, improper non matching MTU sizes - lots of small
> packets - mixes of jumbo packets can cause problems (someone has to
> break them up somewhere and sequence them)
>
> The problems with routers lie in the device itself, firmware can fix a
> fair amount of problems however device construction and protocol
> limiting can also help even further.
>
> If you were to setup a personal linux router i bet you the chances of
> powercycling the home built router are nil if you don't use the machine
> for personal :) - at least in my experience.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
hmm, no comments? :)
William P.N. Smith
Mark McIntyre
<agand...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:2392c25ehffl1u006...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:44:52 +1000, in alt.internet.wireless , Barry
>> OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You must be very old. Nobody uses feet these days.
>>
>> Eh? around 250 million people use feet as their daily measure of
>> length, and probably another 50 million think that way.
>
>He means they use cars.
What, to meaure distance? Wow...
--
Mark McIntyre
chris
works for me, at least someone read it.
thanks for the comment.
Allan
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:54:44 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <iv...@despammed.invalid> wrote in <4id7q6F...@individual.net>:
>
>>"Allan" <agand...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:44c15715$0$22106$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net
>>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@spamcop.net> wrote in
>>> message news:2392c25ehffl1u006...@4ax.com...
>>> > On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:44:52 +1000, in
>>> > alt.internet.wireless , Barry OGrady
>>> > <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > You must be very old. Nobody uses feet these days.
>>> >
>>> > Eh? around 250 million people use feet as their daily
>>> > measure of length, and probably another 50 million
>>> > think that way.
>>>
>>> He means they use cars.
>>
>>How do they get to their cars from their doors..?
>
> They live in them. :)
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
As on the M25 and M6. (in the UK)
Allan
Allan
That's what the mileometer is for, isn't it?
Allan