RESNET PERFORMANCE UPDATE

Zizzi · Post by **Zizzi** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:46 am

Own the bottom part of the fridge?
What the hell does owning a fridge have to do with skype?

Dude I am the guy who raised the skype point in the first place on these forums. And I really dont think anyone is having problems using it.

If they are, then let them post here. There is no point going to ITS and then saying 'Skype aint working' and they turn around and say that it has not been blocked.

slinky · Post by **slinky** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:54 pm

Hmm, perhaps the point that should be raised is that by definition as a p2p program, skype is against the "acceptable usage policy" as shown here http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/its/ ... ences/aup/

Note that it says "Peer to Peer file sharing applications". However, skype will share packets of data between PCs, so i think by that definition it is against the acceptable usage policy. In fact, if i remember correctly, skype has a file sending facility in it.

Anyway, for me, it's wrong that ITS should decide what protocols & software you're allowed to use on your own computer.

Hey, we can download illegal stuff using http or ftp protocols, so why don't they stop that too

echelon · Post by **echelon** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:56 pm

Zizzi wrote:Dudes I can access Skype.

It is working properly.

So that is not an argument point.

Zizzi

I believe others are still having trouble and also if ITS are slowing down DC++ then skype will go with it.. its using a very similar protocol.. I dont believe they've made in distinction on the traffic shaper.. Also I kno last year u could use skype acceptably at certain times..

Oh and a major question how is the quality of ur connection with skype?? lags is not acceptable!! needs to be a smooth conversation for it to be deemed acceptable..

Leshiy · Post by **Leshiy** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:53 pm

Just a thought on the email as it was mentioned minority of the users on the campus were using p2p networks so i dont see how that possibly could have degraded network that bad. Now sure DC++ not 100% legal and all that but it was for how many years?! and new hubs just keep poping up and if ITS are so pissed off bout it then why not compromise most of p2p have bandwidth limiting settings so we can just limit ourselves to 5 Mbyte/s channels, sure the movie will take now 5 mins to download not 2 but that will stop them blaming us for the problem with bandwidth. and as final thought there are ppl using DC++ and other p2p in other halls the once that were mentioned i think just major once.

P.S. I dont even think you can get 1G/s on campus cos they using 100Mb channels and stop playing Q4 so much and get a life if you bothered that much about ur lag.

P.S.2 now wot i didnt realise is that there was another 3 pages of posts here so if any of the above was mentioned before .... my bad

ollywestwood · Post by **ollywestwood** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:29 pm

PanMaster wrote:I think anyone that uses P2P over the internet should be fined; I wouldn't want Quake 4 to lag on me so someone can get the latest Lost episode or some similar rubbish.
The LAN bandwidth seems to be a bit on the lowside, I'm sure I can do 1000Mbps but its only running at 100 for some reason.

i wouldnt want my downloading of the latest lost episode to lag because someone is too much of a twat to live in the real world and has to play quake 4 to get his kicks.

CrAzYfOoL · Post by **CrAzYfOoL** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:43 pm

yep if u havent already realised Panmaster is a bit of an anus

ollywestwood · Post by **ollywestwood** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:46 pm

CrAzYfOoL wrote:yep if u havent already realised Panmaster is a bit of an anus

i think its a truth we all hold to be self evident,
but the question is who is he?
i assume cs but what year?

CrAzYfOoL · Post by **CrAzYfOoL** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:05 pm

dunno what year, and i think we all wish we knew who he was

Tsenister · Post by **Tsenister** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:06 pm

dunno one should find out and lynch him (and steal his PC)

echelon · Post by **echelon** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 3:59 am

ollywestwood wrote:
CrAzYfOoL wrote:yep if u havent already realised Panmaster is a bit of an anus
i think its a truth we all hold to be self evident,
but the question is who is he?
i assume cs but what year?

wat the hell?? wit his knowledge I dont think he is CS.. if he is he is definetly 1st year or he would have failed the first year and thus still be in the first year!! come on.. CS we have far better base knowledge like that.. dont offend us like that.. true I'm not pure CS.. but still any CS student would be offended by the comparing!!!

God · Post by **God** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:10 am

Anon101 wrote: 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...

yea...its doing that for me too atm :/

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.

Its completely different, and on a different network. The pipe from midman to warwick uni uses different bandwidth than the pipe to warwick resnet.

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?

Please do. I plan to publish something against accommodation early next week.

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).

The traffic shaper does this job. Initial package inspection is an intelligent combination or traffic signature and port. If the packet is undefined then a deep package inspection is performed to find out the useage. Its a cat and mouse game with BT and major networking companies... each time a new signature is made the companies need to update shaper software. This is why *some* p2p packets may get through, as they havnt been updated on the shaper software as yet.

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.

Read above for how p2p could work. As for IRC the block will be lifted imminently. [when the network has settled a little] If you would like to use it before then use a bouncer. If you pm me I'll set one up for you. Or if you connect via vpn on the uni network it will work.

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.

The only basic detection method is through deeppackets on the shaper. It will only flag up the worst offenders.

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.

The resnet is now in a set of subnets. Each subnet has certain bandwidth. A new subnet is currently being setup for offenders. Once it is done offenders will be moved there and severely throttled and the subnets restricted will be unrestricted. As of now, no subnets are restricted.

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.

Email ITS and ask them to notify you if your subnet is restricted?

Why can't they restrict induvidual users bandwith? It seems there restricting the bandwith at the network switches in induvidual halls.

Thats what they are working on now as explained before

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.

Investigation consists of getting that information from the shaper.

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 think they were trying to keep it simple so non technically minded people would understand

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.

This is totally incorrect. You are not understanding the way DHCP works. Basically upon connection your port in your room will show as being connected to x IP. DHCP exists due to the number of IP's

. Your IP will change anyway when you get a new lease

Hence why they are restricting whole halls, and why they need to "investigate" induvidual cases.

They can only provide and restrict by subnet not by user. If ITS or any other ISP were to divide pipes like that between users it wouldnt be good (you'd have 1.67kb/s bandwidth)

The standard ISP model works on contention ratios and thats how resnet works too. P2P is completely fucking up a lot of networking standards.

Still have no real suggestion for their rather random list though!

they're probably trying to start somewhere?

Anyway, what do other people think?

I personally think we're going in the right direction. I think that more work on the shaper is still required and the best way to go forwards is to reserve 10MBS of the pipe for HTTP, HTTPS, POP, MSN, and SSH at the highest priority.

I also think subnet throttling should work in affected subnets so they only have 400k or so bandwidth, and the other bandwidth reserved for these "standard" protocols.

It does need to improve but remember its only been inhouse for a few weeks.

I'm currently writing a motion against accommodation which includes a refund demand on this issue along with several other things. I'll take it to the union and see if i can whip up some support

And if ITS are reading this, an update would be greatly appreciated.

Well actually I prefer to be seen as "that undergrad hammered off his head from too much vodka" but its all good

Apologies if I'm not up to speed technically. I'm not a CS student.

boller · Post by **boller** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:32 am

Nah, you are up to speed, and nice post.

CrAzYfOoL · Post by **CrAzYfOoL** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:03 am

yer funky post u know ur stuff

just one Q how u know all the jus how do you know all the information about ITS and the way they run ?

God · Post by **God** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:07 pm

I work for studentcomputing.

Don't lynch me. I didn't ban dc++ or get involved in its banning

To be honest I think its really hypocritical how people can moan and moan about service degradation and then post on how to get around its blocks to use dc++ to an external hub or bt.

I sympathise with ITS. They try and provide a service with as few restrictions as possible and get attacked for it. Compare this universities resnet agreement with most other unis in the country and you will see what I mean.

The problem is the networks gone from a state of complete no rules etc to banning certain [illegal] things, which portrays certain people within ITS as villains. If the university specifically banned smoking crack on campus would everybody get upset?

Ok so maybe the timing wasnt quite right? Maybe the subnet work should have been done during the winter holidays? But let me tell you... the network in its old state would not have survived for long! BT is so efficient its like a vampire to blood.

Do any of you intelligent human beings really believe its some power hungry engineer in ITS who took the decision to ban p2p internally... Use your brains... It was probably somebody in the university legal department.

What ITS need now is information so they can endevour to provide a quality service. I said in a recent meeting (these are almost my exact words) "The service is frankly, slower and less reliable than dialup, and if on the commercial market would be rated as shit"

They are trying their utmost to make it better.

Meanwhile I will be taking action against accommodation for a refund on my internet costs

You'll probably see the document around the union next week.

boller · Post by **boller** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:28 pm

Another, frankly, accurate post.

I don't really think that they are going to give refunds. They will lose a lot of money surely, and they can't just provide a few with refunds, everyone will be entitled?

Hmmm. I'm puzzled.