ResNet Focus Group
Moderator: Operators
ill be @ the next one!
ITS Meeting - Weds 23rd
Ok, i'm going to write out what I remeber of the ITS meeting this afternoon.
P2P:
-----
The AUP rule against P2P systems is reiterated, the reason they give for the rule are:
1) It over uses the bandwidth to the outside world, they insist this is a serious problem and proven to be P2P created (I do actually believe them there)
2) They are apparently not like an ISP and so insist they are open to legal attacks for people pirating software/media. They also stated that they don't want people todo it because they don't want students to have legal action taken against them. Very noble of them I thought but they refuse to accept that this is our decision.
3) They believe they are in a position to enforce the law against piracy. They kept saying 'it is illegal, you shouldn't be doing it'
4) It is against the AUP, end of story. The more technical person there (I missed the introductions so missed his name) said something which I wanted to quote but I've forgotten it. It went something along the lines of:
'We are perfectly within our rights to add whatever conditions we want to our AUP'
I really wish I had the exact quote, it was quite a classic.
It seems their method of tracking P2P usage is to look for high bandwidth and then look at the ports used. They will disconnect people upon suspicsion and then investigate. The meeting is part of the investigation, an iterrogation if you like.
In conclusion to P2P there is really nothing we can do about this, they are saying it is against their rules and we have no choice but to comply as they will continue to disconnect and fine people they catch using it.
Service Degradation:
------------------------
The major service degradation is due to people over using their connections. Their model at present (though they are changing it all the time) is to give a certain traffic limit to a subnet (250 users). This is supposedly based on the 'ADSL contention ratio' system with a contention ratio of 250:1. (I asked them to reduce the number, they said they will try but can't fit enough rules in the router).
Network Model
-------------------
There is presently no protocol/application based shaping. They said implementing it takes far too much administration. Fair point I think. They are thinking of introducing a system where each user is given a fair slice of the bandwidth and also maybe along the current line of the contention ratio system but with transfer caps to individual connections. So you compete with the other users in your subnet but if any person uses too much within one period and reach the transfer limit their connection gets dropped back to a ~56K modem connection until the next period.
This isn't very nice but actually might work quite well.
Communications
---------------------
They completely admit to having bad communications with their users. The comment on their minutes of November 2nd meeting: "Internal filesharing is permitted" was apparently a typo or administration mistake. Someone asked what they were doing about the IRC block. One of them started to say that it wasn't anymore before the technical person said it still was until they announce it isn't. There were a few occasions where the ITS people had to discuss things amoungst themselves for a while before coming to an agreement.
I have asked them to produce an exact list of what is and isn't blocked, how the system is setup and what they do and do not allow, they seemed to agree to this.
That's about it for now, I'll post extra bits as I remeber them.
General conclusion I'd say the meeting went well, they have clarified their position and are seeking to fix the network. I don't like their policy but there is nothing I can do about it.
P2P:
-----
The AUP rule against P2P systems is reiterated, the reason they give for the rule are:
1) It over uses the bandwidth to the outside world, they insist this is a serious problem and proven to be P2P created (I do actually believe them there)
2) They are apparently not like an ISP and so insist they are open to legal attacks for people pirating software/media. They also stated that they don't want people todo it because they don't want students to have legal action taken against them. Very noble of them I thought but they refuse to accept that this is our decision.
3) They believe they are in a position to enforce the law against piracy. They kept saying 'it is illegal, you shouldn't be doing it'
4) It is against the AUP, end of story. The more technical person there (I missed the introductions so missed his name) said something which I wanted to quote but I've forgotten it. It went something along the lines of:
'We are perfectly within our rights to add whatever conditions we want to our AUP'
I really wish I had the exact quote, it was quite a classic.
It seems their method of tracking P2P usage is to look for high bandwidth and then look at the ports used. They will disconnect people upon suspicsion and then investigate. The meeting is part of the investigation, an iterrogation if you like.
In conclusion to P2P there is really nothing we can do about this, they are saying it is against their rules and we have no choice but to comply as they will continue to disconnect and fine people they catch using it.
Service Degradation:
------------------------
The major service degradation is due to people over using their connections. Their model at present (though they are changing it all the time) is to give a certain traffic limit to a subnet (250 users). This is supposedly based on the 'ADSL contention ratio' system with a contention ratio of 250:1. (I asked them to reduce the number, they said they will try but can't fit enough rules in the router).
Network Model
-------------------
There is presently no protocol/application based shaping. They said implementing it takes far too much administration. Fair point I think. They are thinking of introducing a system where each user is given a fair slice of the bandwidth and also maybe along the current line of the contention ratio system but with transfer caps to individual connections. So you compete with the other users in your subnet but if any person uses too much within one period and reach the transfer limit their connection gets dropped back to a ~56K modem connection until the next period.
This isn't very nice but actually might work quite well.
Communications
---------------------
They completely admit to having bad communications with their users. The comment on their minutes of November 2nd meeting: "Internal filesharing is permitted" was apparently a typo or administration mistake. Someone asked what they were doing about the IRC block. One of them started to say that it wasn't anymore before the technical person said it still was until they announce it isn't. There were a few occasions where the ITS people had to discuss things amoungst themselves for a while before coming to an agreement.
I have asked them to produce an exact list of what is and isn't blocked, how the system is setup and what they do and do not allow, they seemed to agree to this.
That's about it for now, I'll post extra bits as I remeber them.
General conclusion I'd say the meeting went well, they have clarified their position and are seeking to fix the network. I don't like their policy but there is nothing I can do about it.
Last edited by oliford on Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ITS Meeting - Weds 23rd
Oh yes, I also asked them if they read these forums. They sort of half laughed and said 'only when we are really bored'
very interesting.. and yes ITS are obviously sitting reading these forums almost as much as I am n thats far too much.. just look at my post count.. 
Interesting that ITS staff themselves dont seem to agree on matters and dont actually really kno wats goin on.. seems its not only external communication thats lacking, but also internal communication!! might be a serious point for ITS to take up to consideration.. I reckon communication failures account for maybe more degredation than DC++.. With bad communication no wonder they cant keep the network together..
Interesting that ITS staff themselves dont seem to agree on matters and dont actually really kno wats goin on.. seems its not only external communication thats lacking, but also internal communication!! might be a serious point for ITS to take up to consideration.. I reckon communication failures account for maybe more degredation than DC++.. With bad communication no wonder they cant keep the network together..
-
Smelly_Kat
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:52 pm
- Location: Leicester
Finally got the notes from the last Focus Group meeting....
Firstly, apologies for not sending these out earlier; I was unexpectedly called away on Thursday and have just returned this morning.
Thanks to all who found the time to come along to the meeting - we really do appreciate your co-operation.
For those of you who were unable to attend, representatives were present from Heronbank, Hurst, Redfern, Rootes, Jack Martin, Tocil, Claycroft and Whitefields.
Summary notes:
1) Reported that performance in Redfern had deteriorated from early evening on Tuesday 22nd; browsing difficult, MSN drop outs, connections terminated - although secure site connections seemed fine. Further reported that performance from 1pm on Saturday deteriorated.
2) The same story was reported from Heronbank.
3) Problems with Skype reported in Claycroft.
4) Jack Martin had no connection for almost 2 hours on Tuesday evening.
5) Issue of IRC blocking - confirmed that the block would be removed in due course. I am pleased to confirm that this block will be removed today. Please do let the HelpDesk know if you have problems accessing IRC after this change.
6) Much discussion took place regarding the AUP and ITS acknowledge that some clarification is needed to all residents. An e-newsletter will be sent out within the next 24 hours providing background and clarification.
7) It was noted that a minute regarding internal file sharing from an earlier meeting had caused some confusion. The discussion at that meeting was to reiterate, once again, that it is not the University's intention to prevent residents from working either individually or together. There are many legal means of sharing work : only peer to peer filesharing is against the AUP.
Network Services explained that at present there is no protocol or application based traffic shaping, but that there is constant review on how best to provide a satisfactory network model. Trials are currently taking place to review the possibility of providing each resident with a 'slice' of bandwidth within their subnet. More information regarding this will be available at later meetings.
Next week's meeting will once again take place at 12.30 on Wednesday 30 November in Ramphal 113.
Hope to see you there.
Regards
Ruth
Ruth Faulkner
IT Service Manager
University of Warwick
Coventry CV4 7AL
Tel: 024 7657 5871 (int 75871)
Mobile: 07876 217987
Email: R.A.Faulkner@warwick.ac.uk
I'll be going to the next meeting (Wed @ 12.30 in Ramphall 113) if anyone fancies joining me for some ITS bashing.
Kat xx
Firstly, apologies for not sending these out earlier; I was unexpectedly called away on Thursday and have just returned this morning.
Thanks to all who found the time to come along to the meeting - we really do appreciate your co-operation.
For those of you who were unable to attend, representatives were present from Heronbank, Hurst, Redfern, Rootes, Jack Martin, Tocil, Claycroft and Whitefields.
Summary notes:
1) Reported that performance in Redfern had deteriorated from early evening on Tuesday 22nd; browsing difficult, MSN drop outs, connections terminated - although secure site connections seemed fine. Further reported that performance from 1pm on Saturday deteriorated.
2) The same story was reported from Heronbank.
3) Problems with Skype reported in Claycroft.
4) Jack Martin had no connection for almost 2 hours on Tuesday evening.
5) Issue of IRC blocking - confirmed that the block would be removed in due course. I am pleased to confirm that this block will be removed today. Please do let the HelpDesk know if you have problems accessing IRC after this change.
6) Much discussion took place regarding the AUP and ITS acknowledge that some clarification is needed to all residents. An e-newsletter will be sent out within the next 24 hours providing background and clarification.
7) It was noted that a minute regarding internal file sharing from an earlier meeting had caused some confusion. The discussion at that meeting was to reiterate, once again, that it is not the University's intention to prevent residents from working either individually or together. There are many legal means of sharing work : only peer to peer filesharing is against the AUP.
Network Services explained that at present there is no protocol or application based traffic shaping, but that there is constant review on how best to provide a satisfactory network model. Trials are currently taking place to review the possibility of providing each resident with a 'slice' of bandwidth within their subnet. More information regarding this will be available at later meetings.Next week's meeting will once again take place at 12.30 on Wednesday 30 November in Ramphal 113.
Hope to see you there.
Regards
Ruth
Ruth Faulkner
IT Service Manager
University of Warwick
Coventry CV4 7AL
Tel: 024 7657 5871 (int 75871)
Mobile: 07876 217987
Email: R.A.Faulkner@warwick.ac.uk
I'll be going to the next meeting (Wed @ 12.30 in Ramphall 113) if anyone fancies joining me for some ITS bashing.
Kat xx