How ISP throttle P2P connections, more specifically?

[SCC]

I've knew that ISP could detect the P2P connection & even might be wif an extensive application of Sandvine to throttle P2P connection.

How they throttle the connection? They limiting the number of peers, or limiting the download/upload rate?

My ISP, TMnet is listed as Bad ISP in AzereusWiki. http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad_ISPs#Malaysia

So, I'm expecting it to throttle my P2P connection. But I've tried to dl wif over 100kbps speed wif a torrent consists of extensive numbers of peers, so I'm wondering they're restricting the speed or not. However, my average dl speed can vary from highest that would be around 80 - 90kbps, rarely, or could be as low as 1kbps.

It's the prob of the ISP or the torrent? Plz help to answer. Thx. ^^

 

[spanky]

I would say it's the torrents you're downloading. Many times over and over I get more than 100 kbps. I have had no problems with my ISP and torrenting.

 

[SCC]

Thx for ur feedback. ^^ Does anyone else has any comment? Plz let me know.

 

[SCC]

Btw, the numbers of peers of the torrent is displaying the number of peers that're currently on9, or including off9 peers as well? Bcoz I've an extensive number of peers in the torrent sometimes, but I'm not connected to all. It might be impossible to connect to all, but at least it's not reaching the maximum speed of my internet connection.

 

[SCC]

In addition to my previous post, sometimes I juz connected to a few only over a large number, like connected to 39 peers over 34489 of total. & some of the peers I've connected doesn't transferring anything each other of us. Plz help me on this. Thx. ^^

 

[SCC]

In addition to my previous post, sometimes I juz connected to a few only over a large number, like connected to 39 peers over 34489 of total. & some of the peers I've connected doesn't transferring anything each other of us. Plz help me on this. Thx. ^^

 

[hermeslyre]

I'm not sure on this, my guess; P2p programs normally use a specific ports, these are known to the ISP and they will throttle these ports, if not all out block them. When you change the stock ports, it's helpful, but not for long. If there system has a policy in place, like drop a packet sniffer on the line after 1hr of continuous uploading, they'll find out what's up, then throttle the port(s) you are using. By throttle I believe they are reducing bandwidth to that port, effectively neutering your UL/DL speed.

Peers shown in the client are peers currently connected to the stack. When you have problems such as low download speed, not connecting to many peers, there could be several problems. NAT configuration problems, port forwarding, Low seeder/high leechers, etc. A torrent that has only 30 seeders and 2000 leechers, or peers won't be a very active torrent.

Are you using XP? If so there is a tweak you can apply, it up the number of open connections from 10, a ridiculous number for P2p work. look here,

http://www.lvllord.de/

running this program will bring up a command prompt. When asked how many concurrent ports should be allowed open, specify 50-100, or even more. realize more doesn't equal better though, either 50 to 100 is fine for p2p.

 

[SCC]

Yes, I'm using Windows XP. So, u mean Windows XP actually restricting the number of connection? Can I increase the number more than 100 or to the infinity?

Anyway, heard that the increase in the number of connection could increase the speed of virus or spyware infections. Can this be effectively prevented by an Anti-virus software, anti-spyware software or a firewall?

I shouldn't have prob wif NAT, since I'm not using NAT. But for port-forwarding, how would it cause prob to the torrent? And for the torrent wif low seeder/high leechers, the leechers could upload their data to others as well. So, an extensive number of leechers shouldn't be a prob too, right? As long as the data of the whole file of the torrent is distributed among the peers in the torrent.

Besides, I'm using a private port, which is the port number higher than 40000 something, can't remember the actual number. So, blocking the BT typical port won't affect me. But if they block the port that I use for P2P, like wat u've said, that wouldn't be effective. As they block, I can simply change the port to another one. The process is going to be keep continuing. I think wat u've said is apply to one-way connection, which means seeding only, right? Or two-way connection, dl/up at the same time (leeching) as well? Btw, I didn't experience prob from seeding. Although the upload rate might be low sometimes, but it still could upload wif higher rate later on. But still can't exclude the possibility that my ISP throttle my connection, right?

Anyway, if the ISP is juz restricting the bandwidth, looks like I wouldn't have prob wif this. Since I can reach high speed sometimes, even at day time.

Btw, any settings I've changed would affect the P2P connection immediately? Like changing the listening port.

 

[hermeslyre]

You can set the number of open connections to over 65,000.. You wouldn't notice it it however, over say, 100. The reason is that the connections are limited per second, and that you'll rarely need more than one hundred, unless of course you're connected to more than 100 people. Feel free to raise it to whatever you want.

Not having the correct ports forwarded creates a situation with no remote connection, it can have adverse effects, slower transfer rate, things like that, but it's safe to run without a remote connection, lots of the time, as I've done it before.

You're right that everyone is constantly sharing the data back and forth, obviously leechers as well, but exclusive seeders are the life of any torrent, leechers are downloading and uploading at the same time, meaning the upload rate isn't ideal. It's possibly to get great speeds on such a torrent, If you're connected to a seeder or leecher with a big pipe, but in my experience with low seed/high leech torrents, it's mostly slow and annoying.

You can try to change ports when the one you're using starts throttling, I dunno if it'll help. If the ISP is vigilant, they'll keep monitoring packet transfer and throttle all the ports they need to. I don't really know. Besides it sounds like you're good, if you are getting good speeds. You should notice throttling immediately should it ever happen.

Any setting applied, or saved should immediately affect the tracker/torrent. usually you lose you transfer, and all peers, and have to start the scrape anew.

 

[SCC]

I see. But is it possible to connect to over 100 peers?

Then, which would be the correct port? I thought all ports're identical? Wat would 'remote connection' exactly means? Isn't all connection is remote connection?

Anyway, remote connection might be increasing the risk of being hacked, right? Any way to overcome this drawback?

I might be asking a lot... =p Hope u dun mind.

 

[SCC]

I see. Is it possible to connect to over 100 peers?

Then, which would be the correct port? I thought all ports're identical? Btw, wat would 'remote connection' exactly means? Isn't all connection are remote connection?

Anyway, remote connection would means increasing risk of being hacked, right? Any way to overcome this drawback?

Maybe I'm asking a lot... =p Hope u dun mind.

 

[hermeslyre]

1) It is more than possible, though I rarely am able to.

2) All ports are the same. You just have to make sure that the ports you've chosen are unblocked, this is accomplished by forwarding the ports directly to your computer through the NAT/router. If NAT isn't blocking the ports(you said this was the case?), you needn't do anything. A remote connection is a connection that is initialized by a peer. There are also local connections, connections that you initialize to them. You can see that it's best to have both.

3) Sure, it increases the risk, though the risk isn't very large. There might be some things you can do to circumvent these risks, i dunno any cept a good firewall and AV/AS. Won't prevent takeovers or remote spying... That's the risk of P2p i guess.

Don't mind dude. Anything else?

 

[SCC]

Yeah, for me, I'm not behind a NAT. A remote connection is a connection that is initialized by a peer, u said? So, this is the connection that they upload to me? While local connection is the other way round? Correct me if I'm wrong...

Wat do mean by won't prevent takeovers & remote spying? U mean it can't be prevented even wif firewall & AV/AS? Why is it?

 

[SCC]

Yeah, I'm not behind a NAT. Remote connection is a connection that is initialized by a peer, u said? Then, this is the connection that the peer uploading to me? While local connection is other way round? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Btw, u mean that takeovers & remote spying can't be prevented even wif firewall & AV/AS? Why is it?

 

[hermeslyre]

A remote connection is when they initialize a connection to you. Like when you look at the peer page of the bittorrent client, you'll see connected peers. They are connected to you either because you initialized the contact or because they did. If you have no remote connection, then they can't request a connection. Local connections are connections you initiate. Once they connection is established, through either local or remote means, you can both communicate to each other freely, through uploaded and downloading.

Yes, things like that can happen, even with a firewall and other protection. When a peer connects to you, you've sort of opened a door for them, making it easier for them to send erroneous or malicious data to you. A firewall will block and monitor ports and packet transfer, yet it can't catch every bit of malware, and it can't block unblocked ports. AV/AS programs will also miss things, and when it comes to the newest of the new worms and virus' it might not even detect them at all.

But I don't mean to scare you, it's still uncommon. I've never encountered such things on top of that, so I don't think there's much need to worry.

 

[SCC]

I see, so either local connection or remote connection will do to build a connection? But only remote connection can gain access to my pc, right?

Haha, won't scare me. Have already aware to it. For spyware & virus issue, I think infection through P2P is very rare. The only concern is intended hacking by the peers. Although it's still not happening currently, juz the matter of who's gonna do it. But I guess that's the sacrifice has to be made to gain extra speed.

Are u certain that Firewall can't monitor every packet that's transferring? Or it's juz it can't detect them? For preventing new viruses, I think NOD32 done very well. It had a test result of 100% detection of new viruses. Although it won't be so for long run, but at least it has high possibility to block most of the new virus.

 

[SCC]

About the TCP/IP connection patch, that u recommended to me... Before I patch, for some torrent, I've already connected to more than 10 peers, although many of each other of us don't transfer anything. Isn't the limit of number of connection of Windows XP is 10?

Besides, about the protocol encryption of BT clients, for the option of 'Auto detect', encryption stream as well as non-encryption stream are allowed, right? I heard that this'll make the P2P connection more vulnerable to be throttled. The way of throttling is juz throttle the non-encryption stream or it'll be able to detect the whole P2P connection & thereby throttle the whole connection?

The option I change for this Protocol Encryption would be affecting the connection immediately or not? Let's say my connection has been throttled due to detected by ISP of partial of my non-encryption stream. If I change the option to only allow encrypted stream, would the connection be free of throttling, assumed that the ISP can't throttle encrypted stream?

 

[hermeslyre]

The firewall does monitor all packet transfer, it just can't detect every piece of bad data. Nod32 is a great AV, one of the best. Paid version? Even better. It could still miss the very "under the radar" items though.

Like I said somewhere above, XP limits the connection to 10 per second. it would take 5 seconds to connect to 50 peers, if you had the limit to 50 or more it would take only a second. Raising the setting could also get the peers more active, as in more UL'ing/DL'ing to you at the same time.

I dunno what auto detect does, The azureas wiki oughta know. if you had encryption on, you could still receive unencrypted data. Encryption will scramble your data, making it slightly harder for an ISP to throttle. There are ways around encryption though, more advanced detection of packet transfer, intermittent hangup packets can also be sent by the ISP to screw things up.. These measures would block all P2p transfer.

No, they'll still throttle. Encryption merely hides and scrambles the signal, trying to confuse a packet sniffer. It's not foolproof, and ISP can still throttle an encrypted signal.

 

[SCC]

The connection is established 10 per second? Only 10 per second, or connection established in the 1st second can be accumulated to the following seconds?

Can u explain how the TCP/IP connection works? Looks like I dun really know'bout it. =p

So, means once the P2P stream detected by the ISP, the whole stream would be throttled, if that's the ISP's intention?

Btw, the 'auto-detect' means encrypting the connection but allowing connection wif non-encrypted peers. Acccording to the site (http://howto.wired.com/wiredhowtos/...fic_shaping_isps;action=display;category=Play), it stated that it allows non-encrypted clients when only there's no encrypted client. If based on the description, it looks like it's not as effective than u can connect to non-encrypted clients, even when there is encrypted clients as well. I wonder it's right or not. In fact, can u connect to non-encrypted peers if ur ownself is encrypted?

Oh, suddenly came up wif a question. The ISP throttle the connection based on ports or the data stream? Wat can be done to overcome this if throttled? Resetting the P2P connection can do?

 

[Cleric7x9]

they just packet shape your torrents. its the same practice that schools and businesses use, just on a larger scale. they purposelly create a bottle neck on a hop close to you that traps packets, effectively slowing down the p2p transfer.

HOWEVER, there is something new that a few ISPs are doing for bit torrent transfers. i cant remember which ISPs do it. They send drop signals from your IP to the server IP, so the server thinks you are disconnecting, even though you arent. IMHO this is really screwed up. I think ISPs need to give users more freedom.