Sign up with Googleloosecannon
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 731
it is a great approach to management but will not work easily in a dynamic IP enviroment ...
-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Short summation of the meeting with Sentech part 1
- Thread starter arf9999
- Start date
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by loosecannon</i>
<br />it is a great approach to management but will not work easily in a dynamic IP enviroment ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not really, Telkom keeps track of ADSL bandwidth usage on a per user basis in a dynamic IP environment. You would only need to keep a table up to date that maps IP addresses to user names, or better yet, use IPSec or something similar that can authenticate each packet. In which case the IP address is immaterial. I'm sure they must be doing so anyway, otherwise you would be able to hijack/DOS someone else's connection relatively easily.
How does Sentech benefit from dynamic IPs anyway? Perhaps it's easier to manage but thanks to dynamic DNS providers they aren't preventing anyone from hosting services. There are better tools for achieving that, like a firewall. Not that I want them to prevent me from hosting my own mail but really... I don't get it! Dynamic IPs are just an unecessary irritation in my mind. But then, maybe that's the whole point [
].
Anyway, I see there is a fault with my formula... But the idea is there...
<br />it is a great approach to management but will not work easily in a dynamic IP enviroment ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not really, Telkom keeps track of ADSL bandwidth usage on a per user basis in a dynamic IP environment. You would only need to keep a table up to date that maps IP addresses to user names, or better yet, use IPSec or something similar that can authenticate each packet. In which case the IP address is immaterial. I'm sure they must be doing so anyway, otherwise you would be able to hijack/DOS someone else's connection relatively easily.
How does Sentech benefit from dynamic IPs anyway? Perhaps it's easier to manage but thanks to dynamic DNS providers they aren't preventing anyone from hosting services. There are better tools for achieving that, like a firewall. Not that I want them to prevent me from hosting my own mail but really... I don't get it! Dynamic IPs are just an unecessary irritation in my mind. But then, maybe that's the whole point [
].Anyway, I see there is a fault with my formula... But the idea is there...
loosecannon
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 731
telkom keeps track of BW on a per user basis based on the interface counters when the user logs out ...
yes a quick look up will do the trick but it will cause latency ... and lots of latency at that in a dynamicaly changing enviroment ....
i would love a static IP but would love it even more if they just get it right
yes a quick look up will do the trick but it will cause latency ... and lots of latency at that in a dynamicaly changing enviroment ....
i would love a static IP but would love it even more if they just get it right
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by loosecannon</i>
<br />yes a quick look up will do the trick but it will cause latency ... and lots of latency at that in a dynamicaly changing enviroment .... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Fair enough...
However, the counters required to implement a weighted contention system do not have to be updated in real time. Even updating them every 10 minutes or even half hour would work reasonably well.
<br />yes a quick look up will do the trick but it will cause latency ... and lots of latency at that in a dynamicaly changing enviroment .... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Fair enough...
However, the counters required to implement a weighted contention system do not have to be updated in real time. Even updating them every 10 minutes or even half hour would work reasonably well.
Hi guys,
This is my first post here... but I've been lurking around for a few months.
Seeing as Sentech is using bandwidth sharing and not contention, this would in fact mean that while you are connected and data is coming through on your connection, you could download as much as you like.
If Sentech was using sharing when they stated that the network was slow because of "users abusing the service", it shouldn't have mattered, as each user can do what he wants with his allocated bandwidth - It wouldn't affect anybody else. The same thing applies now while sharing is still in effect. Can Sentech be allowed to impose their new 'softcaps', IMO in violation of contract... but that's another topic, if sharing is in effect and a user is using his small piece of allocated bandwidth to the max? I shouldn't think so!
Thanks for the feedback on the meeting BTW.
LordVader
This is my first post here... but I've been lurking around for a few months.
Seeing as Sentech is using bandwidth sharing and not contention, this would in fact mean that while you are connected and data is coming through on your connection, you could download as much as you like.
If Sentech was using sharing when they stated that the network was slow because of "users abusing the service", it shouldn't have mattered, as each user can do what he wants with his allocated bandwidth - It wouldn't affect anybody else. The same thing applies now while sharing is still in effect. Can Sentech be allowed to impose their new 'softcaps', IMO in violation of contract... but that's another topic, if sharing is in effect and a user is using his small piece of allocated bandwidth to the max? I shouldn't think so!
Thanks for the feedback on the meeting BTW.
LordVader
loosecannon
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 731
the shareing was only implemented recently to solve the "abuse" problem and doing the maths it is almost the exact figgure of the softcap when running 100% 24/7 ....
elsewhere someone has posted sentech only have 8Mb of bandwidth for all customers 3000 claimed customers ... well doing the maths this would be a problem ... now the figure quoted in the CUG meeting was higher than this but i cant quote that ... and if the figure quoted to us was correct there wont be such a BW problem but a BW management problem ...
elsewhere someone has posted sentech only have 8Mb of bandwidth for all customers 3000 claimed customers ... well doing the maths this would be a problem ... now the figure quoted in the CUG meeting was higher than this but i cant quote that ... and if the figure quoted to us was correct there wont be such a BW problem but a BW management problem ...