but dont think he would have the skill to connect to even his own hub *(the term two short planks comes to mind)*RESNET PERFORMANCE UPDATE
Moderator: Operators
yes. unfortunately, at the moment that is a satisfactory speed.It actually got so slow today that it signed me out of MSN, like dialup did 4 years ago...
I dont know if anyone else has noticed, but they are having major networking problems in the learning grid at the moment, I can't help but think all the problems are linked.
Why, they have to lie about it is still beyond me, I'm definately heading to this focus group thing on wednesday, does anyone else go to that?
My main concerns at the moment are:
How are they detecting these so called P2P Protocols, "protocal" is a very general term, are they monitoring use of known P2P ports? because if they are thats a very poor method of detection. Or can they detect that a certain user is flitting between different servers in a P2P like fashion? Or are they just assuming anyone using a SOCKS5 is using P2P (which again would be very poor).
Since theyve banned P2P protocals, (including IRC etc even though they deny it) I dont see how people can use P2P in active mode anyway.
Whatever they are using to measure, it's a very unreliable method, because Rootes, and Cryfields are not even mentioned. erm, Rootes, has gotta have the largest filesharing community.
How often are they updating these lists that they are restricting bandwith to? or is it realtime, does it restrict and unrestrict depending on if any "protocol" is in use in a realtime fashion.
Why can't we access an up to date list, because surely it is our right to know if our bandwith that we are paying foris being restricted.
Why can't they restrict induvidual users bandwith? It seems there restricting the bandwith at the network switches in induvidual halls.
Why do they need to "investigate" which users are using these "p2p protocols" surely that have a logging system, in which case they either know, or don't know. It's black and white.
Basically, there are so many holes in the email, and it's so incredibly vauge. Maybe I'm speculating but this is what I THINK:
My best guess is they are either assuming people are using P2P if they are connecting to a number of servers and flitting between them (i.e connecting to multiple sources for a file, Bittorrent esq.) AND/OR they are assuming that SOCKS5 is a "P2P Protocal".
I'm also guessing, that they have not actually mapped the IP's to room numbers in halls, I reckon when they plugged in the switches they did it pretty much randomly, and therefore, have no idea what data is being sent from what room. Hence them having to restrict bandwith to particular halls. My circumstancial evidence for this is someone at the opposite side of the house has an IP which is only 1 number away from my address. If they had done it surely, as room numbers increase, the IP numbers would increase 1 by 1.
Hence why they are restricting whole halls, and why they need to "investigate" induvidual cases.
Still have no real suggestion for their rather random list though!
Anyway, what do other people think?
And if ITS are reading this, an update would be greatly appreciated.
I very much agree with u anon101.. I think u should definetly go to the focus group meeting.. I mean u ppl on campus should have an interest in dealing with this since its ur connection (and ur money) that it concerns!
I was told from ITS staff that they infact can map directly to a switch in a room and so can see exactly who is transferring which data. In fact they actually have legal requirements to do so as its part of their term with JANET. Any network connected to JANET needs to be able to track any piece of data back to the originator (ie socket switch in each room in the case of ResNet). So if they dont have this working they may in fact be far more screwed than we think as the university could get in major trouble with the government and the administration of JANET. Actually they'd probably have to pay far more in fines for that than the total amount due for all illegal filesharing on the campus network for the last 5 years put together..
Might be a good point to raise at this meeting.. Also remind them that if they in fact can trace to any room, then why are they blocking complete blocks!! Also someone should demand to see the data from these "investigations" as its public property (I believe) since its through the university!!
[edit] the information on JANET was provided by a lecturer and from JANET's website!
I was told from ITS staff that they infact can map directly to a switch in a room and so can see exactly who is transferring which data. In fact they actually have legal requirements to do so as its part of their term with JANET. Any network connected to JANET needs to be able to track any piece of data back to the originator (ie socket switch in each room in the case of ResNet). So if they dont have this working they may in fact be far more screwed than we think as the university could get in major trouble with the government and the administration of JANET. Actually they'd probably have to pay far more in fines for that than the total amount due for all illegal filesharing on the campus network for the last 5 years put together..
Might be a good point to raise at this meeting.. Also remind them that if they in fact can trace to any room, then why are they blocking complete blocks!! Also someone should demand to see the data from these "investigations" as its public property (I believe) since its through the university!!
[edit] the information on JANET was provided by a lecturer and from JANET's website!
-
nozmadamus
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:27 pm
yeap, i'm from the same kitchen as "anon101", we're gonna go together to the focus group and kick some ass hopefully.
i think we'll write down a list of points that we've been discussing over the last week, (anon101 used a couple of our arguments in his long post) and just see what ITS have to say about it.
Mainly, I just want to see this "evidence" that supposedly shows that those residences mentioned have been using P2P.
If we're gonna take flak from them, they'd better substantiate their accusations.
Oh yeah, it would help if someone could tell me if the residences listed are individual subnets or not. If those listed residences are actual subnets, it suggests to me that they're monitoring traffic just by checking subnet bandwidth uses. If they aren't individual subnets, then i think they're probably bluffing.
Oh, and the most important thing; what time and place is this focus group held at? We saw the details somewhere, but can't remember.
Thanks,
-M@
i think we'll write down a list of points that we've been discussing over the last week, (anon101 used a couple of our arguments in his long post) and just see what ITS have to say about it.
Mainly, I just want to see this "evidence" that supposedly shows that those residences mentioned have been using P2P.
If we're gonna take flak from them, they'd better substantiate their accusations.
Oh yeah, it would help if someone could tell me if the residences listed are individual subnets or not. If those listed residences are actual subnets, it suggests to me that they're monitoring traffic just by checking subnet bandwidth uses. If they aren't individual subnets, then i think they're probably bluffing.
Oh, and the most important thing; what time and place is this focus group held at? We saw the details somewhere, but can't remember.
Thanks,
-M@
I think the more ppl go to this meeting the better
slinky I recommend u and anon101 also take some of the arguments from the discussions on here and try to see wat ITS respond to this.. for example the skype example and the need for international students concerning this... also the various aspects of service - the £5 charge etc
slinky I recommend u and anon101 also take some of the arguments from the discussions on here and try to see wat ITS respond to this.. for example the skype example and the need for international students concerning this... also the various aspects of service - the £5 charge etc
-
greenthumb
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:10 pm