| With proper measurement Even if they did implement foolproof certified good meters.
Still doesnt change the fact that there's TONS of things that can drive your usage way up.
Lets talk about Ping flooding.
Someone who isnt necessarily Cogeco... yet Cogeco could do it also.
1. Buy large amounts of shares in cogeco.
2. Setup massive flood center or botnet.
3. Flood the hell out of cogeco's ip ranges.
4. The users have only 1 recourse... totally disconnect themselves from the internet. That is... if they even have a clue it's happening... 99% of people wouldnt even be able to.
5. When cogeco starts sending out bills to everyone for hundreds and hundreds of dollars over what they ought to be paying.
6. Cogeco declares record profits.
7. Sell shares at the high.
PROFIT! |
|
 QumahlinNever Enough TimePremium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
1 edit | said by munky99999:Even if they did implement foolproof certified good meters. Still doesnt change the fact that there's TONS of things that can drive your usage way up. Lets talk about Ping flooding. Someone who isnt necessarily Cogeco... yet Cogeco could do it also. 1. Buy large amounts of shares in cogeco. 2. Setup massive flood center or botnet. 3. Flood the hell out of cogeco's ip ranges. 4. The users have only 1 recourse... totally disconnect themselves from the internet. That is... if they even have a clue it's happening... 99% of people wouldnt even be able to. 5. When cogeco starts sending out bills to everyone for hundreds and hundreds of dollars over what they ought to be paying. 6. Cogeco declares record profits. 7. Sell shares at the high. PROFIT! Your argument is ruined by saying "even if they did implement fooldproof certified good readers"
It's a trivial exercise to create a meter that discards traffic that was unrequested by the user or that is not actually making a connection to the specified port. This means a "good" meter and a standard firewall would be all you need to not worry about ping floods (and seriously ping floods? What is this 1998?) or even UDP floods. Just depends on where your measuring the traffic and what your using to determine if a packet should "count" or not. I can think of tons of different rules that would distinguish bot flood traffic from legitimate traffic when it comes to home PC's
Distinguishing bot traffic is quite easy on a home PC compared to a website running services across a wide array of ports.
--
Forum Posts:7500 |
|
| said by Qumahlin:Your argument is ruined by saying "even if they did implement fooldproof certified good readers" It's a trivial exercise to create a meter that discards traffic that was unrequested by the user or that is not actually making a connection to the specified port. This means a "good" meter and a standard firewall would be all you need to not worry about ping floods (and seriously ping floods? What is this 1998?) or even UDP floods. So you are all for the ISP breaking net neutrality and filtering internet traffic for us?
If those meters arent measuring those things? How you measuring only what does make it through the gauntlet and make it to my computer?
quote:
that discards traffic that was unrequested by the user
How does the ISP know this?
It isnt that we are trying to cause a denial of service. We are simply causing traffic to happen. |
|
| reply to Qumahlin
said by Qumahlin: Just depends on where your measuring the traffic and what your using to determine if a packet should "count" or not. I can think of tons of different rules that would distinguish bot flood traffic from legitimate traffic when it comes to home PC's Distinguishing bot traffic is quite easy on a home PC compared to a website running services across a wide array of ports. Sure you could. You certainly couldnt differentiate all. They on the otherhand cant measure at your computer.
So really... it's practically impossible for them to create any sort of accurate measurement if the person was under attack.
Here's the reality. All the packets are moving along and are accepted and moved on all the way until they hit your modem. The next step is possibly the first point where you block the traffic as you dont want it.
ISPs arent going to be measuring at your network's first hop. They will be doing it somewhere within their network. Most likely at the 1st multiplexer machines in the line. They cant tell if you blocked the traffic or not. The attacker can spoof packets and ips to make it appear like there's youtube traffic being sent to you. |
|
| Thats what I was thinking.. but in much simpler terms..
Cat and Mouse game |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to munky99999
Ahem, TCP can't be spoofed. TCP accounts for the lion's share of traffic these days. Though with the advent of XoIP UDP will take over and we're back to square one. |
|
| said by iansltx:Ahem, TCP can't be spoofed. TCP accounts for the lion's share of traffic these days. Though with the advent of XoIP UDP will take over and we're back to square one. I was under the impression youtube actually went 100% udp. Even for their http sort of transmissions. As obviously youtube consists of a massive amount of the internet's bandwidth usage.
If I'm wrong. Mybad. |
|
|
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Actually, to my knowledge all traffic in a web browser is delivered over TCP. UDP is only used for specilized applications. Also, I uploaded 10GB or so yesterday over TCP (SFTP). That should be enough to cancel out everyone's YouTube traffic in my town of 30,000 for that day anyway  |
|
