Basically how it works in LFS is that you talk to the server, and just the server. The server relays and (checks to a very limited extent) the packets from other racers to you.
The problem is that any traffic that goes from your PC (or internal network) to the internet, has to at bear minimum go through your ISPs servers which is where the packet shaping occurs (typically traffic will go through a number of different ISPs networks to get to it destination).
Just wanted to say this: My ISP has a website dedicated to gaming, and even advertise with it. You can borrow games from their website to play them online.
I only pay about 40 euros per month, and I get 10 gigs up/download (so 10 gigs is my total, you can use it to download or upload, whatever you need most). They tried to make it easy for gamers to control their usage, it didn't work so good (I never been that much on smallband before then when they did that), but now they changed it again, because of complaining gamers..
Ah, I see.Now is there no other secure way of connecting dirctley to each server?
Whats a VPN connection?
Surely there must be a way of segragating LFS packets from the rest of the http:// shite?
only over the ocean, really
If an ISP starts messing with port-based priorisation/caps over here, it's usually slaughtered in the press pretty fast. Most ISPs can't afford that so the de facto standard move to get rid of "bandwidth hungry" customers is to pay them to move away.
I'm currently paying 3€/month for unlimited traffic.
Sorry, I'll ammend that in a sec Considering it was a discussion on UK ISPs, I didn't think it was worth pointing out.
You have to bear in mind, that the UK is in a bit of a back water, when it comes to the internet, understanding what packet shaping is, and "consumer rights" We're the kind of nation to generally put up with things and grumble in the butchers or the bus queue.
Theres no real way to go directly from your PC to a server. You'll have to cross into other networks (its just how the internet works). A VPN just "fakes" being on the same network.
Sure you could VPN to a server, and its possible that the traffic wouldn't be throttled, but the problem is that the overheads of creating the maintaining a VPN are quite high - so it might make things worse.
Virtual Private Network - you configure two devices (either computers or routers) as bridges and they tunnel any data that you send to them (usually within a reserved IP range) to and fro via an internet connection. The end result is that you can connect two phyiscally separated LANs into what appears to be a single LAN.
Sure there is - already that's what's happening with the traffic shaping. LFS uses UDP streams and usually the server is in the 62000s portrange which is very common for p2p (bittorrent for example) apps nowadays (and very likely gets recognized as such and deprioritized - hence, extra latency).
One idea would be to get server admins to run their servers in port ranges that other much popular games play in. Like CounterStrike for example. Since it's popular like that alot of ISPs probably don't throttle traffic identified as belonging to it.
I just looked it up and a CS host apparently uses UDP ports 27000-27015.
I am not entirely sure if it would be valid to consider using a specific DSCP value in the packet headers since that is commonly used in traffic shaping rules (atleast on Cisco's IOS that I know of).
EDIT:
Funnily enough and relative to UK ISP issues I just found this article on BBC.
I'd much prefer this. Infact I'd prefer LFS to ship with a very different default port for this very reason. Its not really a solution though - more of a workaround. But hell, it would work.
I honestly don't know if its valid to do this from an application stand point, or even how possible it is using the standard windows apis, either tbh I'd argue not, and that it should be the job of your router to do this, as its your edge device. That requires configuration and being compliant with DSCP - which I don't believe many home routers are.
Mr Livingstone is the biggest, uninformed cock on UK tech-related TV imho.
Yeah - until the bulk of p2p users shift to using that port range too stupidly thinking they'll get higher speeds.
I'll take a peek at LFS traffic and see if there's anything else that could make it stand out when using typical traffic shaping rules.
Well you can control it, but most likely it will not mean anything unless you know what rules the ISP is using (which come to think of it usually just disregard the initial DSCP to start with).
Beats me, I never turn to BBC for tech news, just happened to find that when going through google news to see if popular media had references to traffic shaping being a major issue with ISPs.
Ok, reading xaotik's post's I dont know what DSCP is probably better off not knowing, anyway is it that simple, to change the ports that LFS use?
If this packet shaping does prove to be a problem, I suppose you could get scawen to announce on-forum of a test port reconfiguration to see haow it effects the latencey times
@ angry_angel: Why not announce a test and get 20 or so people from different country's at peak(cet) time to connect to a server which you/whoever will host, you could then try different port configurations while keeping in contact with all the players there and then to give them the port numbers too compare the times to the standard ports?
No need to involve Scawen in it - it could be organized by proposing it in the LFS Hosts subforum. Normally it shouldn't hinder functionality of servers and it doesn't take much to restart a server on a different port (say in the 27000-27015 range).
Do you think a test of this type would be useful to give us an idea of how steering the port ranges away from the p2p ranges could effect latencey times?
it is a sad state of affairs, a few days ago Bt Broadband started killing people using IRC when they receive a Dcc send or receive request
some people have had emails confirming they have been blocked, some like me have had emails denying its a BT problem, others have had emails saying its an ongoing concern and the engineers are looking into it.
it is only a matter of time before we are throttled into submission regarding everything illepall
I only ever download episodes of LOST from an IRC server since i dont belive in paying for sky just to watch one series
torrents/ port forwarding and the usual P2P stuff has been blocked on BT ever scince i started using them
Eclipse are now what Plusnet used to be and will go the same way as Plusnet IMO. Plusnet got took over and massively over subscribed leading to an absolutely horrendous service which would not be allowed in any other service sector. Get out while you can.
I think me and the_angry_angel need to meet for a pint because I always agree with everything he says!
The majority of people in England are stupid and I mean scarily stupid. I cannot watch news without screaming at the TV. Morons. illepall
I'm with Zen Internet and as far as I am aware they employ NO traffic shaping at all. Customer service is talked about as excellent (not used it personally because I have the ability to troubleshoot my own connections.) My LFS online experience is superb it just works. Im aware there are lots of other factors involved but its definitely a good experience coming from this camp.
I'm currently trying to acquire a new box and get it out of the door to a colocation facility in the next few days / weeks - so I'm hoping to have a test server up shortly so we can genuinely see whats happening. I've got a few lines, on various ISPs, I have access to so I can actually get some quantive results and try out a few tests. In the meantime, xaotik's request may provide some answers
I have the feeling Eclipse are going to stay near the top of the pile for at least a while tbh. We're (the company I work for) dealing a fair bit with Eclipse (home workers and ADSL backup lines) and their parent company (kingston communications - fibre lines); they both genuinely seem to be on the ball.
Next LFS meet? Or are you near Bath any time? Seriously if you'd like to meet up and chat about random crap, and bitch about the world, I'm usually good for it That goes for anyone else on the forums.
Ah Zen. Before we moved our home workers and backup ADSL lines to Eclipse, they were almost all exclusively with Zen. You're right, theres no shaping at all, but unfortunately the cost and the bandwidth limitations (going over allocations was a common problem on a few lines) were just too much for us, and I personally felt that the customer service was getting worse. Admitedly it was still pretty good (about equal to eclipse's atm), but there was certainly a marked decrease - unwillingness to do line tests etc. when both I and the guy on the other end knew it was BT's fault. Since they get charged each time they do a line test, I'm guessing the bean counters were coming down on the technical guys
That'll be light on your wallet too, I tried to buy him a pint and he wouldn't let me! Although if you go out in Bath you will need to remorgage to pay the bar tab. Later comes the romance and dribbling. Ah, memories.
Okay, I'm going to push THAT image out of my mind as best I can!
[edit] Was I just assuming you meant romance and dribbling with TAA!?
I'm up for doing some testing on this. I've moved the (iB) ukct.net BUMPERZ
server to 27000. I've set it to LX4 & LX6 on South City Long Reversed. Open to better suggestions, though
The question is.. now that it's running, how do we tell if it's in a better range!?
Considering it was a discussion on UK ISPs, I didn't think it was worth pointing out.
We're the kind of nation to generally put up with things and grumble in the butchers or the bus queue.
illepall 
