I put a connection limit on all traffic from ports 1024-65535, because the
torrent has to use a connection somewhere and usually the bit progs are set to
use somewhere above port 1024. That will not help on UDP or the ones using port
80. I have another connection limit set higher on all tcp connections to try to
help combat the port 80 users.
-- Original Message --
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: WISPA General List firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:15:14 -0800
Thats my point. I use star and it has all the layer 7 stuff built into
the cpe. I can control to my hearts content. Generaly I put a switch in
or bridge the linksys wifi router and take control there. If I had to
and I did one situation, I can give daddy one set of rules and little
abusing johnny another.
for the most part, I don't have too much to worry about, it's not being
able to tightly control the encrypted stuff that is the issue.
CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1
P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in
about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P
uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per
packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a
tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of
that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down
loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the
flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right...
Don't tell me not to shape the traffic.
Providing High Speed Broadband
to Rural Central California
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too
much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs
and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is
going to be very noticable.
Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what
happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p.
Travis Johnson wrote:
If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p
traffic, you have bigger issues. :)
George Rogato wrote:
How do you cap the encrypted stuff?
Travis Johnson wrote:
First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day,
otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections
based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of
this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If
they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg.
The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY
else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless
competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their
connection, they will start switching to something that does not have
caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need
for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth
usage, but we allow reasonable usage).
George Rogato wrote:
I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types
traffic and rate limit them.
And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of
various offerings we can provide.
Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic
rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a,
want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want
something different, then it's price c.
The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.
Mark Nash wrote:
This is a good debate.
What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind
last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make
of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a
connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as
proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper
you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to
cost of bandwidth.
However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're
not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service
anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps
content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by
with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED.
My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting
our customers cost us