BigWater
join:2002-11-20
Quebec
| reply to morisato
Re: ***Found a way past The Throttle!*** NO JOKE!
I don't see how changing the listening (upload, incoming) connection port would change anything on the download.
Even if you change your incoming port your BT client still uses what ever port the other peers tells your client to use. If your BT client is configured to use port 80 then the other peers will connect to you to retreive the file they want on port 80. |
|
morisato
join:2008-03-16
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Neither do I understand it bigwater but All I know is if i change that listening port. it Instantly unthrottles.. The science behind it is beyond me and as far as bell Saying that, The fact is There never was ANY congestion in the first place. Bell has cited no proof either they just want to avoid it. if they start Sniffing this ports watch The entire web slow to a crawl! see how they like that. Ps I tested it for uses with Emule as well and that functions under the same port choices. |
|
LiQuiD
BSD geek
Premium
join:2002-08-08
Anjou, QC
| reply to morisato
Here's some other ports you may want to try:
Port 993 - imap-SSL
Port 3128 - Squid Proxy (this one may be throttled though due to all the misconfigured proxies that are exploited).
Port 587 SMTP-Auth
port 123 - ntpd
I also recall the range 6667-6669 and 7000 being for IRC. Hopefully Bell whitelisted all of them. I can't remember the last time I saw an irc server not on 6667 
HTH
--
Windows is the virus. Linux is the vaccine, FreeBSD is the CURE |
|
Name96
join:2008-03-28 | reply to mack5590
said by mack5590 :
I've been throttled at around 25KB/s, max I can get is 40, on 3web. Are you on 3web DSL or 3web cable? |
|
Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to KrK
said by KrK  : won't that impact the network for the actual services (like email etc) to the point that you'll be confirming Bell's EXCUSE that they have to stop P2P traffic for the good of "Network management" ...? IE, you might be HELPING Bell's BS case? Just a thought... Not likely, see, here's the thing - they *can't* throttle certain ports - and those are whitelisted to get missed - because they are for extremely specific protocols. 80 is http, for instance.
If Bell were to start scanning every packet on http, the net would slow to a crawl. So that whole port is exempted. Using any of these ports can work pretty much unhindered. Even if their throttle machines look at those, they see port 80, and httpd protocol...and pass 'em on.
That traffic on port 80 isn't port 80 traffic all the time...most of the time it's ATM traffic. Routers don't much care what port it is, other then they do prioritize 'interactive' traffic - like port 80. That'll reduce the latency of those packets, so it could actually make the overall time to download less, not more. |
|
mack5590
@igs.net
| reply to Name96
said by Name96 :said by mack5590 :
I've been throttled at around 25KB/s, max I can get is 40, on 3web. Are you on 3web DSL or 3web cable? DSL |
|
Sukunai
@bell.ca
| reply to morisato
I figure I will just keep saying it, and maybe someone will eventually here it.
The REAL downloaders, don't download with torrents.
They download from newsgroups.
There is likely more reason for Bell to be concerned for data passing along from other routes than just torrents.
In a week, I likely obtain a few shows through torrents. Then again I can go a whole week and not use the torrent process at all.
Newsgroups is another matter. A week without massive data movement through newsgroups would be quite unusual for me.
There is clearly a lot of people that like using torrents, but there are also a lot of people using the same avenue for entirely legit internet activity. All Bell is doing, is plugging up one portion of the whole, and calling anyone using that route a crook.
That likely means Bell has offended a great deal of honest businessmen. |
|
LiQuiD
BSD geek
Premium
join:2002-08-08
Anjou, QC
| said by Sukunai :
I figure I will just keep saying it, and maybe someone will eventually here it.
The REAL downloaders, don't download with torrents.
They download from newsgroups.
Speaks volumes of your knowledge of the good old "scene" my friend.
*Disclaimer* Not that i'm involved in anything. I was given a very nice letter in nov 2001 during which time I counted my lucky stars that the canadian gov't didn't participate in a worldwide raid, and have learned my lesson since.
Thank you cdn gov't for being lenient! |
|
Name96
join:2008-03-28
2 edits | said by LiQuiD :Speaks volumes of your knowledge of the good old "scene" my friend. That depends on what you take to mean 'real' downloaders. If 'real' means those who use up the most ISP bandwidth, then by far it's the torrent people. If 'real' means those who could go to jail if caught, then there's no question it's the scene types. It's all a matter of definition.
Incidentally the November 2001 takedown of Drink or Die was, in Ashcroft's own words, a larger operation than the criminal investigation into September 11th. Draw your own conclusions about American priorities. My conclusions aren't printable. |
|
ECD
@teksavvy.com | reply to morisato
working for me. im using port 80 and azerus and currently downloading at 146kb/s. its not quite the 500kb/s i used to get but its better than 30kb. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
1 edit | reply to morisato
There are some very vibrant non-scene (BitTorrent) communities that pride themselves on providing better quality content than what the scene produces. I'm very glad to have an account on one of them; you can't get the content anywhere else.
EDIT: The entire point of DPI is that it doesn't rely solely on port-based throttling; that's notoriously easy to get around (and unreliable). If BitTorrent on port 80 isn't throttled now, it likely will be soon.
That, and you can't control what port you connect to other people on, only what port they connect to you on. You're still going to be throttled on half the connections. |
|
liamoforange
join:2005-11-01
Hamilton, ON | reply to morisato
I assume that this will not work for those of us who are required to use specific port ranges.
Is there a way around that?
Cheers! |
|
Sukunai
@bell.ca
| reply to morisato
"Speaks volumes of your knowledge of the good old "scene" my friend.
*Disclaimer* Not that i'm involved in anything. I was given a very nice letter in nov 2001 during which time I counted my lucky stars that the canadian gov't didn't participate in a worldwide raid, and have learned my lesson since.
Thank you cdn gov't for being lenient!"
and
"That depends on what you take to mean 'real' downloaders. If 'real' means those who use up the most ISP bandwidth, then by far it's the torrent people. If 'real' means those who could go to jail if caught, then there's no question it's the scene types. It's all a matter of definition.
Incidentally the November 2001 takedown of Drink or Die was, in Ashcroft's own words, a larger operation than the criminal investigation into September 11th. Draw your own conclusions about American priorities. My conclusions aren't printable."
I'll just say I am not really genuinely aware of that which you refer to. Maybe I don't know as much as I think I know.
I'd be actually amused if you could show me statistics that support that MORE data (legal or otherwise) is downloaded through torrents than off of newsgroups.
When I want a song, I prefer to avoid torrents... inefficient.
When I want a film, I REALLY try to avoid torrents (dvd through a torrent ... yuck).
Heck I try to get everything I can, not on a torrent.
Torrents are the sucktastic option of choice as far as I am concerned.
But as for "scene" well I know what the term denotes. I'm not into uploading though (at all), and when I'm downloading a torrent, I'll be honest I don't care if my upload portion sucks. I'm not in it to distribute data to the planet. I'm on and then off ASAP. Get the data from someone that has an obsession with doing it for all I care 
I have to wonder though some days. I see stuff on the newsgroups, and I can only wonder, "who wants most of this crap?". And that's the odd part, a great deal is crap, and it had to be uploaded by someone, it doesn't get there from nowhere. There are certainly people on this planet with more bandwidth than they can waste.
I'm not one of those though.
I'm just in it for my tv shows. I'd rather download a show, than be forced to watch it when THEY want me to. |
|
themonkeyz
join:2007-11-24
Quebec, QC | reply to morisato
Well I think we just found on which port to put our secure VPN if we ever need that collocation box.
For myself I'm still un-throttled, and I'm in a sector where Sympatico started throttling in December. |
|
ECD
@teksavvy.com | reply to morisato
this worked on utorrent for me also with port 80 open. |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :I'm not a user of any of the throttled Bell services, but as a third party I'm kinda wondering.... if people start to use ports designed for email, HTTP, etc to get the torrents past the Sympatico throttling, won't that impact the network for the actual services (like email etc) to the point that you'll be confirming Bell's EXCUSE that they have to stop P2P traffic for the good of "Network management" ...? I mean, if you've got people who can't get email, and Bell says "It's the evil P2P'ers!" well, won't that be justification for draconian "traffic management" ...? IE, you might be HELPING Bell's BS case? Just a thought... No, a port is an arbitrary number that has nothing to do with speeds in an unthrottled network. |
|
alekssavvy
join:2007-06-27
Etobicoke, ON
| reply to morisato
i hate seeing things like this. if you figure out a way around something, either keep it to yourself or tell someone that is not going to spread it around. simple fact is, once the routers see an increase in traffic on certain ports they will inspect it and throttle it.
its nice people trying to help but the result will be everyone left with nothing instead of at least some people getting past it. |
|
morisato
join:2008-03-16 | reply to morisato
Well I personally doubt that bell wants to DPI every web/email packet on their network it would KILL it. so i fully expect to not see it fixed |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| said by morisato :Well I personally doubt that bell wants to DPI every web/email packet on their network it would KILL it. so i fully expect to not see it fixed Why not? They do DPI on every other packet. Presumably their equipment can work at line speed.
They likely disabled DPI on certain ports to try to avoid problems with false positives. To quote the Matrix, "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept." They may decide that they have no choice, and apply DPI to port 80. They may just decide that they'll have to be careful and keep an eye on it.
A safer option, for now, is to use a VPN. Setting your BitTorrent client to port 80 will still leave outgoing connections throttled, whereas a VPN will protect all your traffic. |
|
alekssavvy
join:2007-06-27
Etobicoke, ON | reply to morisato
thats exactly what happened in rogers. i remember going through this before  |
|
