-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
HTTP-Tunnel or tunnelling?
- Thread starter JohnDoe
- Start date
yes it does, its not a tunnel though, just define a proxy with azureus and it will work, you can use HTTP or SOCKS proxies,
Anything that changes the traffic type works because the packet shaper will not recognise the packets as p2p ones
Anything that changes the traffic type works because the packet shaper will not recognise the packets as p2p ones
It would work, however it will be difficult to find an HTTP Tunnel with a fast free server. Some of the HTTP Tunneling software out there used to have free servers, but they have since been stopped entirely or have been limited to a much slower speed.
The tunneling software basically uses a server as a proxy and tunnels all your traffic through it (so I wouldn't really advise using it for sensitive data).
I would say that with SAIX's current level of port shaping (assuming this is what you're using), it would be more trouble than it's worth, as you should still be able to get decent speeds.
If you're using UUNET (and they're still shaping to the extent that they were), then it is a viable option, but good luck finding a free server with speeds faster than dial-up. I would rather advise trying out unshaped ports, and seeing if that works.
The tunneling software basically uses a server as a proxy and tunnels all your traffic through it (so I wouldn't really advise using it for sensitive data).
I would say that with SAIX's current level of port shaping (assuming this is what you're using), it would be more trouble than it's worth, as you should still be able to get decent speeds.
If you're using UUNET (and they're still shaping to the extent that they were), then it is a viable option, but good luck finding a free server with speeds faster than dial-up. I would rather advise trying out unshaped ports, and seeing if that works.
Thanks Slimothy. Have u tested HTTP-tunnel specifically?
I'm trying it now on high-bandwidth mode and find it improves quite a bit, however it is a bit erratic. I suppose this is due to international bandwidth being erratic at the moment.
I'm trying it now on high-bandwidth mode and find it improves quite a bit, however it is a bit erratic. I suppose this is due to international bandwidth being erratic at the moment.
uh... you dont need 'tunneling' software, you need azureus and a proxy, a socks proxy that gives full speed and is free and open would be hard to find but normal http proxies arent so I suggest you use those, this has been documented heavily on these forums in the past
Im really glad none of your designed the internet 
Using international proxy on port 1080,3128, anything other than 80,25,110,443(reports show this is also unshaped) will still be shaped, regardless of being a proxy.
Port 1080 is shaped internationally, connecting to international http-tunnel server will also be shaped.
How many of you think before you post comments regarding these type of things?
If the proxy is running on port 80,110,25,443 , then it will make a difference since those ports are unshaped, according to Telkom atleast.
Using international proxy on port 1080,3128, anything other than 80,25,110,443(reports show this is also unshaped) will still be shaped, regardless of being a proxy.
Port 1080 is shaped internationally, connecting to international http-tunnel server will also be shaped.
How many of you think before you post comments regarding these type of things?
If the proxy is running on port 80,110,25,443 , then it will make a difference since those ports are unshaped, according to Telkom atleast.
Both.. afaik it works on port then packet, depending on the system.. In fact I start to doubt that Telkom do any packet shaping, those with knowledge regarding this, would appreciate to know. I have done some tests and it seem to allways come down to port shaping, unless the packet shaping is very minor.
And yes p2p is port shaped first, enough proof would be having proxy run on port 80/110/25 internationally and then checking your performance compared to directly going via the default path.
All and all, http-tunnel or any other proxy running on other ports than 80/110/25/443 will help you nothing.
And yes p2p is port shaped first, enough proof would be having proxy run on port 80/110/25 internationally and then checking your performance compared to directly going via the default path.
All and all, http-tunnel or any other proxy running on other ports than 80/110/25/443 will help you nothing.
Clipse said:
Actually, most HTTP Tunneling software uses port 80 (hence the name). It's often used to connect to an outside network from a network that heavily shapes most non-standard ports (e.g. a workplace).
What JohnDoe was most likely referring to with regards to port 1080 is setting up a program to use the HTTP Tunnel (127.0.0.1:1080). The HTTP Tunnel itself usually uses port 80.
Simply changing the port in the program will most likely be ineffective if they are packet shaping (as slimothy said), but an HTTP Tunnel or proxy might work. However, if they are simply port shaping (which, if JohnDoe is using SAIX, they most probably are), then changing the port should work.
ok and clearly then you miss the point im trying to make, if it uses port 80, it wont work since it will go thru the saix transparent proxy which in affect, I would think so atleast, would have shaping of its own or a configuration to affect bypassing.
Thats the point of a transparent proxy, automatic control over certain ports, in this case, port 80 but also to do automatic caching without client side configuration.
All and all, he will have to use a port not caching to the transparent proxy or any ports outside the unshaped circle, best bet would be to try the remaining ports ie 110/25/443(people do get some good results from this one)
End of it all, http-tunnel doesnt use those ports, so it wont work.
Thats the point of a transparent proxy, automatic control over certain ports, in this case, port 80 but also to do automatic caching without client side configuration.
All and all, he will have to use a port not caching to the transparent proxy or any ports outside the unshaped circle, best bet would be to try the remaining ports ie 110/25/443(people do get some good results from this one)
End of it all, http-tunnel doesnt use those ports, so it wont work.
Okay Clipse, I concede, I may have been mistaken .
But I have successfully used HTTP Tunneling software (not HTTP-Tunnel) when UUNET were heavily shaping and also with SAIX when I experienced harsher than usual shaping earlier this month.
) should be unnecessary.
.But I have successfully used HTTP Tunneling software (not HTTP-Tunnel) when UUNET were heavily shaping and also with SAIX when I experienced harsher than usual shaping earlier this month.
I was also wondering this, as I'm on SAIX as well and everything's at full speed, so any form of tunneling (whether or not it worksClipse said:
) should be unnecessary.I'm downloading torrents from mininova.org and testing HTTP-Tunnel and Your-Freedom software. Most of these torrents report on trackers set at port 6969. I'm using Azureus as my torrent client.
Last edited: