Comments on: Visualizing µTP

By: pingo

pingo — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:41:27 +0000

The key is to surprise the enemy.

As long as they can predict what route you will use, they will find a way to shape/kick/block/ban it.

Get inside them.

By: Arioch

Arioch — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:43:46 +0000

What i find, id some kind of “RAM congesting”

Take usual home router, like TrendNet 632/652 BRP

MIMO-WiFi, OpenWRT/DD-WRT support, linux stock firmware

connect it to some metroLAN ISP

1) UTP has native capability of NAT traversing – great! i wonder why oldie-goldie UTP-torrent did not.

2) however after half-hour of highly successfull UTP experience (downloading at 3-5 MBy/sec avg), the router itself starts degrading: at worst cases its internal WWW setup page no more loads. But easiest to notice is that Wi-Fi WPA2 + DHCP notebooks can no more connect until restarting router.

I can find no other explanation, than UDP traffic routing tables consumes orders more RAM than TCP r.t. and blocks Wi-Fi/WPA/DHCP modules from loading from swap.

By: Thys the online games man

Thys the online games man — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:04:22 +0000

makes sense. have had enough trouble with bottlenecks and just having everything freeze up, regardless of the number of tries.

Will give it a few goes now and play around. hope it works. continue fighting the good fight!

he he he.

By: BitTorrent6.4

BitTorrent6.4 — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:26:54 +0000

как увеличить скорасть клиента BitTorrent6.4

By: TheNetworkGuy

TheNetworkGuy — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:59:01 +0000

What seems at issue here can be called “congestion control” in underprovisioned networks. If congestion becomes a major feature of your network, you should not even be into network provisioning. To take an extreme angle: is all this fuss about accomodating quarterly-revenue-driven corporate profiteers that are too stingy to invest in proper infrastructure? It is not at all expensive or difficult to engineer a properly provisioned network. Go look at countries in the far-east, who typically take a long-term (much longer than quarterly) view and are actually investing in their own business’ infrastructure. Foreign concept, perhaps? But it CAN and HAS been done.

While I greatly respect some of the posters advocating “intelligent” non-neutral networks, I am obliged to sound an urgent warning to them. The thing that has made “The Network” great, is that it is simple, ubiquitous and dumb. All it does is shift packets. One example of what happens when you add “intelligence”: One of the few spaces that the current “clamourers” have to “implement policies” is in BGP. The effect of them “protecting their interests” is that implementing BGP has become fiendishly difficult and expensive for everyone, especially multihoming, and even more so on IPv6. This cost is simply passed on to the end-user. And BGP is now known as Border Gateway “Politics”. Imagine what will happen when they are allowed, by consensus, the same with plain transit. The first step on the road to hell.

Kudo’s to Bittorrent for actually doing something about it. However, it shouldn’t be their problem. The reason bittorrent uses “ten times” more bandwidth than other applications, is because that’s how much it takes to move a file over the network. Nothing to do with the protocol. Everything to do with overselling and underprovisioning.

Request to the guys working on uTP: Please remember the people on the other end of Long Fat Pipes – lots of bandwidth, but with lots of latency too.

By: MF

MF — Sun, 09 May 2010 18:45:09 +0000

Lol, 2^^10 (tetration) is quite a big number, it’s 2^(2^(2^2^(2^(2^(2^(2^(2^2)))))))). For example 2^^5 is 2^(2^(2^(2^2))) that’s more than 2*10^19728. 2^^10 is more than 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^19727.7804))))). You can’t imagine that, and certainly can’t write that much words, it wouldn’t even be possible if every quark in the universe contained googolplex supercomputers.

PS. 2^^10 ends with the 5 digits …48736.

By: Arioch

Arioch — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 02:20:40 +0000

“network-enabed” is way too broad range
only those dealing with large-volume latency-independent downloads. And not all apps, but a fair plenty of those.
BitTorrent/uTorrent alone is noticeable share of world-wide internet traffic.

You can. But you probably cannot make p2p transfers with wget
However, that is by no means bad. You would get normal-priority (not high – there is no high at all) and so would harm your own www/mail/chat/etc

The settings is to be “by default”. We are lazy and we would not set extra chechbox for every new p2p downloading task. So, by default, they would be low-priority. Yes, if for some unusual reason, this particular info is important fo user, he has his right to mark it with normal priority. Giving slightly better downloading time and noticeably worse overall internet experience. If thuis information worth it – why not ?

By: Gospodin

Gospodin — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:33:49 +0000

I don’t think this would work, it’s impossible to get EVERY network enabled application to comply. If what you suggested is imposed, I could just use wget to do my downloads, and get a high priority

By: Arioch

Arioch — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:16:13 +0000

for what was told above, context was prioritization of traffic with one client’s tube, not accross clients

OTOH prioritizing traffic accross different users is an interesting question in itself

If to compare Ann’s BT and Bob’s VoIP, then i think BT should be low-priority latency-wise and should be same-priority average-bandwidth-wise.

By: Kyle Waters

Kyle Waters — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:49:36 +0000

Your assertions that bittorrent traffic is low priority is closed minded George. It is simply not neutral. I do not play online games. I do not use VoIP. I also rarely watch streaming videos. What do I do? I use bittorrent. I pay the same for bandwidth as a user that does use these things. If I was getting less bandwidth than an chronic phone talking girl who uses VoIP then I’d, rightly, be upset. I understand your argument that bittorrent traffic is low priority. In that it isn’t time sensitive but that doesn’t make throttling it not net neutral (sorry for the double neg) because for the the person who uses both VoIP and bittorrent- they would prioritize VoIP over bittorrent but to someone who only uses non-time sensitive apps bittorrent might be their priority. I pay the same as any other user and therefore should get what I want else I’ll leave the network for a competitor even if higher priced.