RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 2:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC What is considered a large number of connections? How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's typical usage. Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is being abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small community WISP trying to use a single residential plan conneciton? Is it possible that we need to start charge for number of connections instead of just say the number of bytes transfered or speed? My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online. My Linksys DD-WRT based router had a problem. It had max ports set out 512. When my PC then his polled hundreds of servers to find the best connection it hit that limit. Raising it to 1024 seemed to fix it. So limiting connections will likely smack gamers as well as p2p users. Keep in mind that when a gamer opens 1024 connections within a few seconds, he will have a detrimental effect on any wireless network and severe effect on those wireless networks that do not use polling (i.e. 802.11 based systems). So as a network operator, you may still be interested in limiting resource availability for that sort of application. - Larry WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
What is considered a large number of connections? How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's typical usage. Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is being abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small community WISP trying to use a single residential plan conneciton? Is it possible that we need to start charge for number of connections instead of just say the number of bytes transfered or speed? My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online. My Linksys DD-WRT based router had a problem. It had max ports set out 512. When my PC then his polled hundreds of servers to find the best connection it hit that limit. Raising it to 1024 seemed to fix it. So limiting connections will likely smack gamers as well as p2p users. Keep in mind that when a gamer opens 1024 connections within a few seconds, he will have a detrimental effect on any wireless network and severe effect on those wireless networks that do not use polling (i.e. 802.11 based systems). So as a network operator, you may still be interested in limiting resource availability for that sort of application. We run Canopy. When a gamer does this they usually find a server and do not have to run another scan for quite some time. Where p2p does this crap all day long. P2p is also a bandwidth hog and we have limited resources there due to the wireless loop and we deploy in rural areas where bandwidth is pricey. Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Matt wrote: What is considered a large number of connections? How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's typical usage. My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online. My Linksys DD-WRT based router had a problem. It had max ports set out 512. When my PC then his polled hundreds of servers to find the best connection it hit that limit. Raising it to 1024 seemed to fix it. So limiting connections will likely smack gamers as well as p2p users. For that matter, it can easily kill legitimate traffic. For a while, I toyed with setting a limit of, say, 24 simultaneous connections per client IP address. Then I found out folks use Firefox and set it to open a dozen tabs when launched, oh and they all use the FasterFox extension that ignores browser politeness, downloading 20 and 30 files from a given Web server at once, and pre-caching links you're likely to click on. Those little bursts of traffic look, from the tower's point of view, very much like bursty P2P traffic. If you're just going by number of TCP connections or number of packets in a given window of time you'll have far too many false positives. Generally, this kind of traffic is perfectly alright anyway. If someone hammers the tower for half a second, that's okay, nobody will really even notice. It's when someone is hammering the tower for hours at a time that people start to call and complain. The best (or the least-bad) solution for this really is packet inspection to identify and limit the p2p-style traffic. We may hate it from a lot of perspectives, but from the keeping your network running well and keeping your subscribers happy perspective it's pretty much the only viable choice right now. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC What is considered a large number of connections? How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's typical usage. Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is being abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small community WISP trying to use a single residential plan conneciton? Is it possible that we need to start charge for number of connections instead of just say the number of bytes transfered or speed? My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online. My Linksys DD-WRT based router had a problem. It had max ports set out 512. When my PC then his polled hundreds of servers to find the best connection it hit that limit. Raising it to 1024 seemed to fix it. So limiting connections will likely smack gamers as well as p2p users. Keep in mind that when a gamer opens 1024 connections within a few seconds, he will have a detrimental effect on any wireless network and severe effect on those wireless networks that do not use polling (i.e. 802.11 based systems). So as a network operator, you may still be interested in limiting resource availability for that sort of application. We run Canopy. When a gamer does this they usually find a server and do not have to run another scan for quite some time. Where p2p does this crap all day long. P2p is also a bandwidth hog and we have limited resources there due to the wireless loop and we deploy in rural areas where bandwidth is pricey. Good Point The duration of a scan would certainly have an effect on the impact on the network. If the scan is completed within a few seconds then the network disruption might go unnoticed. It sounds like the solution here would not be to limit the number of simultaneous connections but rather to limit the number of sustained simultaneous connections. - Larry WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] $400.00 lap top
Awhile back there was a thread about hardened laptops for service personnel. Then I spotted this article http://tinyurl.com/239v4k or http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071123.wgtonelaptop1123 /BNStory/Technology/home about the Linux based lap top for kids with a daylight screen, sealed keyboard, USB, dual power, wireless, camera, any way for $400.00 you get one and some poor kid some where else gets one too. http://www.laptopgiving.org/en/explore.php My question: will a Linux based system run the apps we would need for service personnel? Does this unit have enough power to do an install. @ $400 for 2, we, WISPA, could do a lot of good, if they would work for our service personnel. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] $400.00 lap top
A better option may be the Asus Eee PC, http://eeepc.asus.com/en/701.htm They're so popular most retailers are having problems keeping them in stock. I've been considering getting one for roof site surveys to replace my existing aging laptop. People have reported successfully getting Windows XP installed on it, although it's by no means fast. Graham On Nov 26, 2007 12:20 PM, CHUCK PROFITO [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Awhile back there was a thread about hardened laptops for service personnel. Then I spotted this article http://tinyurl.com/239v4k or http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071123.wgtonelaptop1123 /BNStory/Technology/home about the Linux based lap top for kids with a daylight screen, sealed keyboard, USB, dual power, wireless, camera, any way for $400.00 you get one and some poor kid some where else gets one too. http://www.laptopgiving.org/en/explore.php My question: will a Linux based system run the apps we would need for service personnel? Does this unit have enough power to do an install. @ $400 for 2, we, WISPA, could do a lot of good, if they would work for our service personnel. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] $400.00 lap top
CHUCK PROFITO wrote: My question: will a Linux based system run the apps we would need for service personnel? Does this unit have enough power to do an install. @ $400 for 2, we, WISPA, could do a lot of good, if they would work for our service personnel. The OLPC would be a very poor fit for this sort of thing, I imagine. The CPU is from years ago, hard disk (actually, flash) is very slim - I think 1GB, maybe even less - and no onboard Ethernet. The CPU and onboard RAM is probably sufficient for configuring most gear, as long as it's done through a browser and not with proprietary software. If you went to the trouble of wiping the pre-installed version of Linux and replacing it with a stock distribution, and could keep things light enough to fit on the small onboard storage, it'd be doable. The question really is whether the time you'd have to spend would be better spent elsewhere. As someone else mentioned, the Eee might be a good fit, if your eyes are in good shape (a 7 screen is smaller than you think). David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
