funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to Noah Vail
Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted.
said by Noah Vail  :Discrimination is required for Prioritization. You can't so much as route a packet if you don't examine it first and make a judgment about it. And for that, and ISP only needs to examine the IP header (Layer 3). You don't need to interpret anything after the header (which would be TCP/UDP for layer 4 or anything they transport, such as KAD,FTP,MFTP,HTTP, etc.). All the bits that the ISP needs to prioritize are also located in the IP header.
RFC 2474 Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS 2474 Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers (an Internet Official Protocol Standard)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Anyuser2
said by Anyuser2 :Prioritization absolutely wouldn't be going away, and there's no reason it should be. They certainly aren't promising to leave traffic "fully unaltered". Discrimination is required for Prioritization. You can't so much as route a packet if you don't examine it first and make a judgment about it.
If the framework were non-discriminatory framework, there would be no judgments made about traffic. Your switches would be no more than hubs.
Comcast apparently forgot that non-discriminatory has an actual meaning. They threw the term out there, intending it to be feelgood gobbledygook.
That is an indicator,
that Comcast's promise
of a non-discriminatory framework,
is - say it with me now,
Yet another bald faced Comcast lie.
Perhaps it's understandable. It seems Comcast can count on a certain number of folks to ignore or redefine their declarations as the need arises.
said by Anyuser2 : Really, all they've said is that they won't specifically target bittorrent/p2p Oh? Where did they declare that with clarity?
said by Anyuser2 :odds are they'll be stopping the questionable practice of forging reset packets. Long odds indeed. What, precisely would they do to end that practice?
No, wait; let me guess. They'd be pulling on espaeth's big internet switch thingy?
said by Anyuser2 :said by Noah Vail :To bring non-discrimination to practice would involve walking across the net-op center floor and powering off the Sandvine equipment. Comcast says it may take up to 9 months to accomplish this. So the Comcast Net-Op manager gets up from his chair. He takes one step. Then he takes another step. He breaths in. He breaths out. Skip 9 months. He reaches out with his right hand, index finger extended.... He depresses the button marked power... And the network upgrade is completed! Network management still needs to be done. Are you familiar at all with Sandvine?.. or is all you know "SANDVINE = BAD!!". Yes, the torrent blocking is questionable, but there's a lot of other things that equipment does and can do. Look into it. I see you've powerfully summed up your opinion on the company, carefully listing your objections.
Which would be that hysterically plopping forged reset packets, into one direction of a P2P transfer is questionable.
Questionable? What exactly is your question? You seemed to have a superior handle on the topic only a few sentences ago. Now you have something left to learn? Shocking.
But don't feel alone. Comcast must have had some questions as well when they directly and forcefully lied about crapping up the handshakes.
But you are so right about the unmentioned capabilities of Sandvine's PTS. Their DPI allows for expansions that could be used for inserting ads; content monitoring and putting their content ahead of, or on top of what you tried acquire.
BTW, some of us hate seeing resets; bad syns or bad checksums. It's the red flashing light that tells us somethings broken and if we have 27¢ of integrity, we'll go after the offender that dares muck up our streams.
However, that would take concern over the quality of what you provide. Comcast isn't really hooked into this quality thing. And I've duly noted your passionate concerns over their lack of customer concern. You can tone down all that passion now.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to espaeth
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!
said by espaeth :said by funchords :Isn't that the hacker defense for kids that break into high-profile corporate or government systems? "I wasn't trying to read anything, I just wanted to see if I could break in!" Yeah, but hackers don't have nifty agreements like this: However, Comcast and its suppliers reserve the right at any time to monitor bandwidth, usage, transmissions, and content in order to, among other things, operate the Service; identify violations of this Policy; and/or protect the network, the Service and Comcast users. Yeah, agreed. Them clever hackers, them! :-P
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to espaeth
Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted.
said by espaeth :Uhh.. no. Queue the Sesame Street "Some of these things are not like the others" music. Don't take this the wrong way,....
...but you're the only one who can hear the SS music.
I'm sure it's lovely.
said by espaeth :Throttling and prioritization do not modify traffic, and will still very much be a part of any network's traffic management strategy. I never spoke of modifying traffic. That was you, I'm somebody else. Perhaps the music is distracting you?
I spoke of Comcast's promise was to provide a non-discriminatory framework.
Which form of packet manipulation takes place without any packet examination and evaluation whatsoever?
said by espaeth :"This means that we will have to rapidly reconfigure our network management systems, but the outcome will be a traffic management technique that is more appropriate for today's emerging Internet trends. We have been discussing this migration and its effects with leaders in the Internet community for the last several months, and we will refine, adjust, and publish the technique based upon feedback and initial trial results," said Tony Werner, Comcast Cable's Chief Technology Officer. That's nice.
I notice he never addressed the specific network management techniques they are considering and what their goals are in respect to them. Of course, that would be information. The dissemination of which is not their strong point.
His white noise technospeak is very soothing, though. Needs some background music. Maybe some....
said by espaeth :Just curious, in your world does the equipment room have a big switch labeled "Internet" that should always remain in the "ON" position? That's just SOOOOOO cute! I can see you with Big Bird, in his "Big Room 'o Tubes". And there you are jumping up and down, dying to pull on the big foam rubber switchey thingey.
I'm sorry you mistook that for the Sandvine Policy Traffic Switch power breaker. Here, have a cookie; the music is starting up again for you.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to funchords
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!
said by funchords :Isn't that the hacker defense for kids that break into high-profile corporate or government systems? "I wasn't trying to read anything, I just wanted to see if I could break in!" Yeah, but hackers don't have nifty agreements like this:
However, Comcast and its suppliers reserve the right at any time to monitor bandwidth, usage, transmissions, and content in order to, among other things, operate the Service; identify violations of this Policy; and/or protect the network, the Service and Comcast users. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to Corydon
said by Corydon :I'm not sure if the courts would buy your theory, after all, Comcast isn't interested in the content of your communications. Isn't that the hacker defense for kids that break into high-profile corporate or government systems? "I wasn't trying to read anything, I just wanted to see if I could break in!"
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. |
|
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to pokesph
said by pokesph :In some states where Comcast operates, intercepting private data communicaions is criminally illegal (same thing is applied to hackers as well) Grabbing your packets and FORGING RST's before passing the packets on sure seems like intercepting to me... Hence they ARE breaking the law in some places. I'm not sure if the courts would buy your theory, after all, Comcast isn't interested in the content of your communications. Certainly I haven't heard of anyone bringing a lawsuit against them under this theory.
The outstanding class action lawsuits out there focus on breach of contract and false advertising, not intercepting private data communications. And frankly, I don't think those class action suits are going much of anywhere anyway, considering how the TOS is set up and how Comcast hasn't advertised its HSI service as "unlimited" AFAIK for at least the last few years. At best, the members of the class will get a month of service and a nifty keychain, the lawyers will get paid, and Comcast won't admit any liability.
But IANAL. You may be; if so, why aren't you pursuing this in court? |
|
madrhino
join:2004-07-03
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as pulling someone you don't like out of line, punching them in the face, and then blaming someone else for the assault. That sums it up rather nicely. |
|
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :And even for the ones that are out there, they did not get it right. Remember that I found this after two months of investigation as to why I couldn't upload anything via Gnutella -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week -- 100% blocked. Their Sandvine "solution" doesn't delay uploads, it blocks them. Comcast's stretched definition of "delay" only works when there multiple copies of all pieces outside of the Comcast.net domain. Comcast, being the 2nd largest ISP in the US, repeatedly prevented a lot of original content from being uploaded. They didn't delay it, they blocked it. I have seen what is most likely Sandvine equipment in
operation on Gnutella and WinMX, where it forces peer
connection resets as soon as someone enters my upload
queue. And sometimes I've seen these people keep trying,
maybe not knowing that they are disconnected in this
manner, thinking perhaps it is the person they are
downloading from that is disconnecting them.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
|
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as pulling someone you don't like out of line, punching them in the face and telling them if you see them again you'll do it again. No, allow me:
Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as pulling someone you don't like out of line, punching them in the face, and then blaming someone else for the assault.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to Anyuser2
Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted.
said by Anyuser2 :Are you familiar at all with Sandvine?.. or is all you know "SANDVINE = BAD!!". Yes, the torrent blocking is questionable, but there's a lot of other things that equipment does and can do. Look into it. Honest question for you, or Espaeth, or other knowledgeable:
Other than the P2P Policy Enforcement part, does Sandvine's hardware have anything else that is unique and compelling over the competition?
Their stock crash tells me, "No," but this is really not my field.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to espaeth
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!
said by espaeth :I'm not knocking RFCs, there's a lot of brilliant ideas published in RFC form, but you have to take them for what they are. And then there are the RFCs that are issued dated April 1 such as 1149 (A Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers) issued in 1990. This one was actually implemented experimentally a few years ago and even had an enhancement RFC issued a few years ago where the datagrams were tunneled via commercial air planes to speed the transmission time. |
|
Anyuser2
join:2008-03-19
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Noah Vail
Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted.
said by Noah Vail :Non-discriminatory means NO discrimination. That means no prioritizing, throttling, packet forging, packet injection, or anything else. Since you can not make an alteration to the network traffic streams without discrimination (ie:examination and evaluation), Comcast is promising to leave the network traffic fully unaltered. Not really, no. Prioritization absolutely wouldn't be going away, and there's no reason it should be. They certainly aren't promising to leave traffic "fully unaltered". Really, all they've said is that they won't specifically target bittorrent/p2p - odds are they'll be stopping the questionable practice of forging reset packets.
said by Noah Vail :To bring non-discrimination to practice would involve walking across the net-op center floor and powering off the Sandvine equipment. Comcast says it may take up to 9 months to accomplish this. So the Comcast Net-Op manager gets up from his chair. He takes one step. Then he takes another step. He breaths in. He breaths out. Skip 9 months. He reaches out with his right hand, index finger extended.... He depresses the button marked power... And the network upgrade is completed. Network management still needs to be done. Are you familiar at all with Sandvine?.. or is all you know "SANDVINE = BAD!!". Yes, the torrent blocking is questionable, but there's a lot of other things that equipment does and can do. Look into it. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to espaeth
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!
Hardly. Just using the same silly reasoning you did.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to RadioDoc
I'm just saying you're taking the personification of a TCP RST a bit far. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to espaeth
Take it personally? Are you sure you are replying the correct thread?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to RadioDoc
Do you also take it personally when cell towers become loaded and shrink their coverage area causing you to drop your call? |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to espaeth
"Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as cutting in line. "
Since oversimplified examples have been introduced, I'll correct yours:
Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as pulling someone you don't like out of line, punching them in the face and telling them if you see them again you'll do it again.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Corydon
said by Corydon :said by funchords :Forging the RSTs is a wrongful act. After you get caught in "The Real World," you don't get to keep committing wrongful acts with impunity until you figure out what else to do. What exactly does "wrongful act" mean? Is forging TCP RST packets illegal? Possibly, in the context of the FCC's current rules, but that's debatable (and rather unlikely, in my view). More likely, Comcast's methods are legal now, but they want to preempt any further regulation. ... In some states where Comcast operates, intercepting private data communicaions is criminally illegal (same thing is applied to hackers as well)
Grabbing your packets and FORGING RST's before passing the packets on sure seems like intercepting to me... Hence they ARE breaking the law in some places. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to funchords
Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted.
said by funchords :Comcast should only prioritize according to approved "Internet Standard" RFCs. Any other behavior is not Network Neutral. That's great, except there are no official standards on how applications should be prioritized. |
|
