Shaping: Port vs Protocol

[goocreations]

I was wondering if in general (in SA) shaping is done on ports or on protocols.
Anyone any idea??

 

[unskinnybob]

Port/Protocol - whats the diff? Protocols are bound to ports - so to shape a protocol you'd be shaping a port or a number of ports.

 

[Pada]

Its really difficult to tell.

Like unshinnybob said: certain protocols are using fixed ports, so they just have to shape those specific ports.
Usually the ISP's would have Layer 7 packet inspection to shape the protocol, instead of just the port, since people nowadays tunnel stuff through ports which aren't shaped.

 

[goocreations]

unskinnybob, I think you've got something wrong, protocols are DEFENITLY not bound to ports. that would destroy the whole purpose of protocols.

 

[Messugga]

Port/Protocol - whats the diff? Protocols are bound to ports - so to shape a protocol you'd be shaping a port or a number of ports.

Er, bound? No.

 

[goocreations]

applications have default ports (like firefox, or IE), but this doesn't mean your http traffic is fixed to that specific port. you can tunnel http through any port, as long as no other application uses that port (then collision may occur)

 

[HavocXphere]

All ISPs in SA use DPI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection). I reckon MWeb has the most advanced system/most complex setup.

I doubt anyone still uses Port shaping.

 

[w1z4rd]

Port/Protocol - whats the diff? Protocols are bound to ports - so to shape a protocol you'd be shaping a port or a number of ports.

Not really. I can ssh, ftp or pop on any port I choose.

Its deep packet inspection with protocol filtering.

 

[unskinnybob]

Ok - bound was a bad choice of words. I wanted to refer to default ports for some protocols but that point of view would be equally irrelevant based on where the OP is going with this.