cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Why should I get penalised because of heavy p2p users?

N/A

Why should I get penalised because of heavy p2p users?

This is not an attack on any p2p users. I simply don't think it's fair that I should get penalised lately by having traffic management applied to me because of heavy p2p users who download tons of stuff.

I only use my broadband connection for surfing and online gaming. My wife for surfing, messenger and listening to streaming French radio. None of which generates a great deal of traffic. We use a maximum of about 2Gb per month.

So why is my Race Driver 3 online game being traffic shaped? It's just not fair!
11 REPLIES
crimsone
Grafter
Posts: 317
Registered: 15-08-2007

Why should I get penalised because of heavy p2p users?

Erm - Gaming traffic isn't restricted - in fact it's exhalted above all other traffic (or should be in theory and by PN's own statements.)

Smells like some manner of technical issue to me. Do you have any further information (and didn't you open a thread about this previously?).

Edit: Nope. you opened a thread about this VERY recently. This really belongs there (Somebody please merge).

Looking at THAT thread, it appears that the game you are playing is up to 12 players and connects "client to client" rather than to game servers. This is actually "peer to peer", and it sounds like it's being placed into the P2P queue because of this.

Have you just been told of p2p restrictions on your account?

If the traffic from this particular game is identifyable through packet inspection, PN may be able to route all traffic for this game through the gaming queue. That said, it does connect through p2p, so maybe not - that depends on Plusnet, and depends on what kind of data the game needs to send. If it's not more than most other games, I doubt there'll be a problem.
N/A

Why should I get penalised because of heavy p2p users?

This may well be related to my fault but it is a general concern about traffic management, hence a new thread.

The reason why I have mentioned this is because traffic management has been in place for some time but I have only recently been experiencing problems. This to me smells of new traffic management policies implemented on the ports I use for my online game. Realise here though that traffic management is only needed because of heavy p2p users.

Whether my particular problematic online game is being traffic managed by accident is irrelevant. Which ever way you look at it, the fact remains that I, as well as many others, have to suffer because of heavy users. If it wasn't for heavy downloaders then traffic management wouldn't need to be so strict and I wouldn't have the problems I'm experiencing now. So I stand behind my reason for this new thread.
crimsone
Grafter
Posts: 317
Registered: 15-08-2007

Why should I get penalised because of heavy p2p users?

No, no, and no. Sorry.

Traffic management is done through deep packet inspection, not on given port ranges.

Traffic management is required because the growing internet is becoming more and more oriented towards facilities that are heavy on bandwidth. While p2p is one such area, video strwaming is another. Besides this point, P2p isn't quite the seedy thing it's been made out to be - as you yourself have shown with your game, which allows multiplayer gaming through the use of peer to peer (or client to client) technology. There again, even in the traditional filesharing areana, legitimate uses include sharing home videos, downloading software distribtions, downloading movies from such places as Sky (legally), and even legal music P2P services.

All of the above and more are the reasons that traffic management is needed.

As it happens, PN's traffic managment isn't really "strict" at all. Each month, each user has an allowance of completely clean traffic that is well within what can be considered reasonable usage. This allowance only applies during peak times, as traffic is only managed at peak times. If you are within this allowance, then you will see no shaping other than where the network is stretched beyond capacity (which hasn't happened yet). during off-peak times, no shaping is applied at all. Could you name another ISP that uses traffic management and offers a service less strict than this? It's getting difficult these days to even find a decent ISP that doesn't manage traffic on their network.

As for new traffic management - the only thing on the cars is to do with encrypted p2p traffic - hardly draconian.

It's also worth mentioning that this is coming from someone currently seeing poor p2p speeds, and was very critical of the shaping in the way it was first introduced (and then they changed it to be fair to everybody). Better still, I'm not a particularly heavy user either.
N/A

Why should I get penalised because of heavy p2p users?

Quote
Traffic management is done through deep packet inspection, not on given port ranges

I always assumed that the ellacoyas worked by deep packet inspection - so it beggars belief how users now have to beg plusnet to unrestrict certain ports even for games which once worked fine (specifically, before the power outage at telehouse north).

Online gaming requires next to nothing in terms of bandwidth, but do need low latency connections. Because of this, gaming punters fall into a relatively profitable category for any ISP. Online gamers should be the least of everyone's worry :roll:
crimsone
Grafter
Posts: 317
Registered: 15-08-2007

Why should I get penalised because of heavy p2p users?

Oh, I agree there Gotdsl. I apologise is that wasn't clear. All I was saying was that this particular game operates on a peer to peer basis - Personally, I'd have no problem at all with it being added to the gaming queue. I was just using it as an example of how seemingly "innocent" internet applications can in reality be p2p based. Smiley


Essentially, I was talking about traffic management on the whole, and the idea of some manner of new cloak and dagger secret shaping. I would never advocate it's use on gaming traffic unless there were severe and unusual repercussions stemming from a particular game - pretty unlikely I think.
Liam
Grafter
Posts: 2,083
Registered: 04-04-2007

Why should I get penalised because of heavy p2p users?

I'd just like to pipe in here and mention that the Ellacoya updates we currently have in testing are designed to fix this situation.

:-)

Thanks.
crimsone
Grafter
Posts: 317
Registered: 15-08-2007

Why should I get penalised because of heavy p2p users?

Which one? The ports issue after the power outage mentioned by Gotdsl, the encrypted p2p issue, the slow p2p issue, or the games which operate through p2p issue?

Or all of the above? :p

Thanks anyway thoug, it's good to know Smiley
N/A

Why should I get penalised because of heavy p2p users?

i think he means them being able to pick up on encrypted p2p traffic (which I suspect will hit VPN users pretty hard too)

Sorry crimsone, I was just having a momentary outburst. Wasn't aimed at you Tongue
crimsone
Grafter
Posts: 317
Registered: 15-08-2007

Why should I get penalised because of heavy p2p users?

Tongue

No problem. Thanks Smiley
N/A

Why should I get penalised because of heavy p2p users?

Traffic shaping or not, my online gaming pings for Race Driver 3 increase 10 fold during peak times compared to off-peak times. As I have said, this is a recent change and whatever the reason for it it's unwanted and unfair.

As this game is one of my joys in life, any idea when I'll get my low pings back Plusnet?
N/A

Why should I get penalised because of heavy p2p users?

Personally, I am going to hold out for this ellacoya fix. If things still dont get any better then I will probably move, even if I have to pay more Sad