xnet blocks a dc+ hub/website access

Geekzone is supporting the TVNZ 7 Internet Debate.

Forums › WorldxChange / XNet / VFX

› xnet blocks a dc+ hub/website access

This discussion is locked

1 | 2 | 3

callumb

31 posts | 5 friends

Geek

Reply # 113727 posted on 29-FEB-2008 11:15

Hi All,

I thought I would post here to clear up some misconceptions. Yes, we have blocked access to a certain IP address (210.48.72.60) that was hosting a DC++ hub. We did this because it was becoming detrimental to our network performance, as PhantomNZ has pointed out, there were only 19 users which were taking up a whole heap of our National Transit - we are talking in the region terabytes per month!

Now, in no way are we trying to censor the Internet, all we were doing was trying to protect the network and keep a good experience for all users. This is in our userbases best interest, sure it may make a few unhappy - but we have to act in the interest of the overall xnet community.

Cheers,

Callum Barr
Network Engineer
worldxChange Communications

exportgoldman

1050 posts | 33 friends

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 113733 posted on 29-FEB-2008 11:36

callumb: Hi All,

I thought I would post here to clear up some misconceptions. Yes, we have blocked access to a certain IP address (210.48.72.60) that was hosting a DC++ hub. We did this because it was becoming detrimental to our network performance, as PhantomNZ has pointed out, there were only 19 users which were taking up a whole heap of our National Transit - we are talking in the region terabytes per month!

Quite a different story than the owner of the site stated! Thankyou for telling us the truth.

Is this because there are XNET customers on free national traffic?

Tyler - Parnell Geek - iPhone 3G - Lenovo X301 - Kaseya - Great Western Steak House, these are some of my favourite things.

freitasm

The Supreme Bean - BDFL
26540 posts | 5115 friends

Alpha Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Subscriber

Reply # 113734 posted on 29-FEB-2008 11:37

exportgoldman:
Looks like the press have already picked this up

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10495115

So is XNET the only one blocking this site?

The idea is not much different from an old blog post of mine about traffic management based on content type.

Mauricio Freitas (Geekzone Admin, Devil's Advocate, technology disclosure)

The Geekzone Guide (or how to get the best out of Geekzone)

New Zealand IT Jobs | News | Free publications | Ads free Geekzone with subscription | Mobile Software Store

PhantomNZ

19 posts | 4 friends

Geek

Reply # 113737 posted on 29-FEB-2008 11:45

Hi,

Thanks for your response. I was unaware of the volume of traffic this was generating. Do you not think that you should be addressing this issue with the customers involved rather than blocking every xnet customer? If you were to block every customer, why can't you just restrict access to the server's port only? Why do your helpdesk staff deny that anything has been done on your end? They tell your customers to talk to the server admin. If your customers are paying for this service, shouldn't they be able to get what they're paying for? Are you providing them with a connection that states they are allowed to download this volume of data, however, when they do, you will find ways to stop them doing so? If large volumes of national traffic are a problem, shouldn't you move them onto a capped data plan? Or if they are already, shouldn't they be allowed to what they have paid for?

I do not monitor in any way the traffic generated by this service, apart from what is used by protocol. Are you sure that all of it is coming from people connecting to each other via this hub? There are many others in NZ, including private ones. I recall there being an Xnet local traffic hub set up not so long ago. I'm sure this one would generate more traffic on your network than my one does.

The DC server has been moved to a different IP. Will this mean that this one will be restricted now instead?

If you restrict access in this way, people are just going to move to a different server or protocol and do the exact same thing.

PhantomNZ

19 posts | 4 friends

Geek

Reply # 113739 posted on 29-FEB-2008 11:55

exportgoldman:
callumb: Hi All,

I thought I would post here to clear up some misconceptions. Yes, we have blocked access to a certain IP address (210.48.72.60) that was hosting a DC++ hub. We did this because it was becoming detrimental to our network performance, as PhantomNZ has pointed out, there were only 19 users which were taking up a whole heap of our National Transit - we are talking in the region terabytes per month!

Quite a different story than the owner of the site stated! Thankyou for telling us the truth.

Is this because there are XNET customers on free national traffic?

I don't see that I misled you in any way there. However, I wasn't aware of the volume of traffic done between Xnet customers. There is no way I can find this out either, except if I was to ask each of them individually how much data they have done.

callumb

31 posts | 5 friends

Geek

Reply # 113740 posted on 29-FEB-2008 11:56
The DC server has been moved to a different IP. Will this mean that this one will be restricted now instead? If you restrict access in this way, people are just going to move to a different server or protocol and do the exact same thing. If that new server starts affecting our other customers experience, then yes.

freitasm

The Supreme Bean - BDFL
26540 posts | 5115 friends

Alpha Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Subscriber

Reply # 113743 posted on 29-FEB-2008 12:01

callumb:

The DC server has been moved to a different IP. Will this mean that this one will be restricted now instead?

If you restrict access in this way, people are just going to move to a different server or protocol and do the exact same thing.

If that new server starts affecting our other customers experience, then yes.

The use and download of rich media is a fact of life. People will keep doing it - and more so in the future with more people coming to the Internet.

Instead of blocking the traffic shouldn't the ISPs work on better traffic prediction mechanisms, better network configurations, better data plans that put the real cost of this traffic in front of the customer?

The way I see it, currently ISPs try to make it cheaper without necessarily making it better.

I think that by definition if someones contracts a service and pays for it, then the full service should be provided. As I said before, the nature of the content shouldn't be an influence.

The fact that rich media content is larger, well, so be it. ISPs have to start providing the service.

PhantomNZ

19 posts | 4 friends

Geek

Reply # 113744 posted on 29-FEB-2008 12:10

With my current knowledge of the DC protocol, I am unsure how you established that the data was coming from my service. DC stands for direct connect. The users just get the IP / port from the hub once. From there on, all the handshaking is done between the clients. This IP/port information is obtained from all hubs a user is connected to.
Can anyone from Xnet confirm how this information was collected? I may be able to monitor usage a bit better if I can find this out.

jnimmo

24 posts | 2 friends

Geek

Reply # 113748 posted on 29-FEB-2008 12:25
It is not the DC server generating the traffic, the server (I imagine) would transfer no more than 1GB of data a month. Surely it would be in the interests of all to address the problem with the few users who are using all the traffic, rather than blocking it for all customers, some of which will only be using it for chat purposes.

tyagi

18 posts | 5 friends

Geek

Reply # 113750 posted on 29-FEB-2008 12:27

callumb:
there were only 19 users which were taking up a whole heap of our National Transit - we are talking in the region terabytes per month!

For the sake of clarity, the XNet FAQ (http://www.xnet.co.nz/hsi/faq.shtml) states that "Local" traffic (traffic on the XNet network) is not accounted. Domestic and International traffic are both accounted and therefore charged.

In this instance, customers transfering significant volumes of data would therefore be paying for it under the current XNet plans. I'm not aware of any "unlimited" plans that XNet has, and if they did exist, they should have a "reasonable use" policy which would enable XNet to terminate their service.

Perhaps a better solution to customers a Service Provider considers to be "abusing the service", is to use the agreed Terms & Conditions to terminate the problem users' accounts, rather than seeking a technology solution?

PhantomNZ

19 posts | 4 friends

Geek

Reply # 113752 posted on 29-FEB-2008 12:30
My thoughts exactly. It should be a matter of taking it up with the few customers involved than restricting the masses.

grant_k

2251 posts | 20 friends

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 113758 posted on 29-FEB-2008 12:48

tyagi: ...I'm not aware of any "unlimited" plans that XNet has, and if they did exist, they should have a "reasonable use" policy which would enable XNet to terminate their service.

Yes there is a plan called Xtream which has Unlimited National traffic, but it has now been grandfathered. However, there are still some users on it, and I am one of them.

You get a 10GB International allowance, after which your speed is capped at 64kbps. National and Local traffic are not counted towards the total for the month.

In our household with 3 voracious internet-using children, we always use up our 10GB allowance, and frequently a bit more. Our speed got capped late last night

but today is the last day of the month, so no worries. We only use around 1-2 GB of National traffic per month, and obviously this would not be of any concern to Xnet.

But it sounds to me as though these other users of the DC++ hub are on the same plan as I am, and are consuming at least 100GB per month each (at least 2TB between 19 users as Callum said). Last year, there was another case of an Xnet user who was consuming between 60GB and 110GB of National traffic on the Xtream plan, and in the end, he was moved to a metered plan IIRC.

In excess of 100GB usage without paying for it obviously makes these customers uneconomic for Xnet, and the T&C give them the right to move such users to metered plans, or disconnect them if agreement on a plan change cannot be reached.

I am also surprised that Xnet didn't just use the T&C to deal with these 19 users as others have already stated above. Doing a blanket blocking exercise does seem a little draconian, especially when the existence of the block has not been publicised in advance.

Callum has now 'fessed up as it were, but it would have been good if those users had been notified in advance, and given a chance to change their behaviour before the block was put in place.

Personally, I have never used a DC++ hub, and didn't even know what one was until this thread was started, but it would sure p1ss me off if access was denied to such a resource without the reason being publicly notified in advance.

PhantomNZ

19 posts | 4 friends

Geek

Reply # 113767 posted on 29-FEB-2008 13:10

I'd just like to point out that those 19 users were all non xnet users at that time. Thats the total number of users using the service after the block had been put in place (although it was a quiet day).
There are around 5 - 10 xnet users using the service (when they can connect to it).
On a good day, there may be at peak say 35 users in total scattered over all sorts of ISPs. Quite a number of those users do not use it for file sharing either.

The hub itself generates about 100MB of data per week with protocol. No files are hosted on the server. The server does not proxy transfers or anything like that.

As a side thought. I have a fish tank at home. If I was to set up a video camera with a 1mbit stream and using my server to relay it, and say 10 xnet customers decided they wanted to watch it 24/7. Would the xnet technicians restrict access to my server then? We're talking 4.39GB/hour, 105.47GB/day, 3.09TB/30day month.

Xnet

21 posts | 5 friends

Geek

Reply # 113779 posted on 29-FEB-2008 13:50

I have had a good look at the comments and the views of the users here on Geekzone. We understand your concerns and have taken your comment on board that we should not be blocking entire sites from all users and have opened it back up.

The side effect will be that we have to spend more time monitoring the individuals. There are users of silverserver on the Xnet network eating in excess of 130gig of national traffic. Some of them have capped their international usage at 1gig and simply share nationally and eat up network resourses and bandwidth. They are the folks that keep all of your cost of services high and limit ISPs ability to invest heavier in other services and capacity. These users are inbreach of the Xnet acceptable use policies.

There is no doubt that most of the content is in fact illegal and it is interesting the silverserver blocks access from outside NZ since it would only be overseas watchdogs that will issue cease and desist orders. Other countries are considering making it the ISP responsibility to act as Internet cops. I expect NZ will be quick to jump on the bandwagon if that happens. We all better hope that it doesnt happen but as with fireworks & collapsed bridges. Legislators jerk their knees when the headlines get too big.

The techs showed me some of the content that is being distributed through silverserver and all I can say is that there are some sick individuals out there. But hey.... to each his own. Please stay away from my pets though

1 | 2 | 3

This discussion is locked

By posting in this forum users agree to our forum usage guidelines (FUG). Moderators and administrators may edit posts that do not respect these policies.