ResNet Update (P2P + Traffic Shaping)

Saberwing · Post by **Saberwing** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:38 am

I don't understand that. Why is it 'acceptable' to block some P2P programs but not others?

Saberwing · Post by **Saberwing** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:29 am

Also...isn't that a bit of a lie as we can't connect to any of the DC++ Hubs?

Post by **BigG** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:18 am

Well if they haven't blocked gaming, then it's just the network sucking... I know a load of people who have been complaining that they've been getting pings >600ms; there is no way that they can argue that >600ms pings is 'playable'

My connection is being maxed out atm by one thing and another yet:

C:\>ping www.google.co.uk

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.102.9.104] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.102.9.104: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=240
Reply from 66.102.9.104: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=240
Reply from 66.102.9.104: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=240
Reply from 66.102.9.104: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=240

Ping statistics for 66.102.9.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 25ms

Yay for haxy traffic shaping of win(TM)<annoying="rubbing it in">

CrAzYfOoL · Post by **CrAzYfOoL** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:11 pm

well this is my connection at 13:10,

Pinging www.l.google.com [66.102.9.99] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.102.9.99: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.102.9.99: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.102.9.99: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.102.9.99: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=238

Ping statistics for 66.102.9.99:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 53ms, Maximum = 138ms, Average = 97ms

thats poor

..

speakerfreak · Post by **speakerfreak** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:40 pm

Just had an interesting conversation with ITS...

Basically I just received the letter about ResNet. In it is specifically states that whilst some P2P applications have been blocked, others have not; if we believe any other restrictions are in place contact us...so I did.

They told me that DC has "either been blocked or put on the lowest priority making it unusable." This totally contradicts what the letter says, but when I told him that I was told "thats the way it is and ITS have no plans to change it."

So, how about everyone else calls them as well to argue this point?!? Ext. 75000.

jjlondonuk · Post by **jjlondonuk** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 5:25 pm

regardless of the right or wrong in blocking p2p (personally i think it is wrong, especially if hubs are located off campus and therefore not the university's responsibility) why has internet performance not increased since?! the performance im getting at the moment is shocking. for my sins i once had an isdn line and now im starting the remember it fondly!

boller · Post by **boller** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:00 pm

use the proxy address, miles faster most of the time( for http )

Zizzi · Post by **Zizzi** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:47 pm

What is the proxy?

UnholySmoke · Post by **UnholySmoke** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:03 am

wwwcache.warwick.ac.uk

Or there's an auto configuration script at wwwcache.warwick.ac.uk/proxy.pac

Anyone have any news about anything?

Post by **cocodude** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:15 pm

FYI, I think it's port 3128 for the proxy (at least it was a year ago).

Cocodude

E · Post by E » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:21 pm

How do you set up the proxy? Or how do you open the configuration script.. I've never heard of a .pac file extension.

UnholySmoke · Post by **UnholySmoke** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:31 pm

In IE, it's in Tools, Internet Options, Connections, LAN settings. The .pac file address goes in the auto configuration script bit. The proxy address and port go in the proxy server bit below. In Firefox it's all pretty similar, Tools, Options, Connection Settings.

Still, variable results. When wwwcache is fast it's very fast, but when it's not working it's useless. Remember that MSN Messenger uses IE's connection settings, so if that stops working (which it does for me from time to time) switch IE back to auto detect.

E · Post by E » Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:26 pm

Should I be entering both the auto-configuration script and the proxy information in the LAN settings, or is only one of them necessary?

Thanks for the assistance, and the heads up re: what to do when it stops working.

CruzerMX · Post by **CruzerMX** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:22 pm

Hey guys, anyone here tried playing their PS2 online? I couldn't get it to work when I ran the set-up on my Network Access Disk. Is it possible that they have blocked or placed the ports needed for PS2 online in low priority?

Also, they say that they haven't blocked games... thats bs because I get ridiculous pings on all games I play. Something needs to be done because its like going back to the dark ages (56k)....

echelon · Post by **echelon** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:22 pm

Well everyone I think the key here is to read their notice carefully.. ITS cleverly (and annoyingly) use a clever marketing technique to say one thing and imply something else!!

Not having blocked the other p2p apps and gaming does not mean they will work!! They simply put them on lowest priority ie terrible connection!! This means apps like DC++ will timeout and games will do the same!! Yet they have not lied in their statement!! very clever.. (and as I stated annoying!)

I would complain if I lived on campus this year!! Also I reckon a few of us CS students could quite easily create a better network especially if we had full working days to do so like ITS staff!! tho I reckon its not actually bad skills from ITS staff rather just bad management!! not sure this new ITS director knows what he/she is doing!! I say we get him/her FIRED!! lol

E wrote:I agree that the state of the network is apalling - web pages are slow to download, legal downloads (AOE III demo ) are slow, and all of the games I thought I would have been able to play online are just unbearable due to latency.

But what I find almost more uneblievable is that many of you seem to think that you somehow have a right to have access to P2P programs, apparently because they can be used for legitimate, legal sharing purposes...
Who are you kidding?
No doubt all of you have illegal uses of P2P programs in mind, and even if you don't, or can think of a legitimate reason as to why they should be allowed (seriously, can you?), the majority of others using them will use it for illegal purposes.
While I wouldn't mind access to them myself, I see it as perfectly fair of IT Services to disallow the use of such programs.

Well actually I could easily name P2P apps that are completely used for legal purposes.. Do u kno wat Skype is?? Yes indeed that is a P2P app.. n if u call that illegal I would prefer u never spoke again!! Its shameless to decided for users wat is acceptable and wat is not.. Ok sure certain apps like bittorrent are destructive for the network and I will have to agree that they should not be allowed.. (everything ppl use bittorrent for can be acquired elsewhere!!) I dont even use bittorrent anymore myself.. Dont like it.. its bad for the my own network too and I prefer to know who is downloading from me rather than all kinds of random ips accessing my network!