With more and more ISP's deciding to slow down various ports, I was wondering if there was a quick easy way to test which ports were best to use, rather than trial & error?

Could always ask them

Usually "high" ports (> 1024) are throttled. 443 and 80 are usually not (or not throttled as much), along with 8080, as these are known HTTP ports.

Quote from the_angry_angel :

Could always ask them

Usually "high" ports (> 1024) are throttled. 443 and 80 are usually not (or not throttled as much), along with 8080, as these are known HTTP ports.

I tried asking them, and they didn't exactly REFUSE to tell me, they just gave a 'politicians' answer...load of bull$hit and no info

I was thinking more in the very high range, like 27000-63350 etc, mainly for games servers

Quote from Bladerunner :

I was thinking more in the very high range, like 27000-63350 etc, mainly for games servers

I'd hedge my bets on the commonly used game ports;
HL / CS
Quake 3
WoW

I'm with Tiscali and only get around 50 servers on S2 in the evenings due to the ports

I know it's port throttling and traffic shaping as they all start reappearing after 11:30pm

I wish that sever admins could choose ports that are known not to have these problems, for instance I can allways get access to Conedodgers and Redline but STCC is hopeless for me

PS. I've had to set the master server to 8080 as the other option 29339 would result in NO REPLY FROM MASTER SERVER between 4pm and 11:30pm

My list is tottaly dependant on the port the host is set up to, I'll grab a sreenie of my access tonight so you can look into what ports the servers are using that I have access to it would then give you a better idea of the problem

i would simply change ISP, have you checked if the traffic shaping was mentioned in your initial contract?
to me its just a way of using the probably already stressed infrastructure instead of updating and providing quality service.

Quote from Barroso :

i would simply change ISP, have you checked if the traffic shaping was mentioned in your initial contract?

Thanks Barroso but here in the uk most mainstream suppliers have usage policies or are traffic shaping, this thread is an excercise so hosts can understand better how to counteract the effects of poor ISP's but I agree with you about moving It's just sometimes more hasstle due to Phone packages etc.

OK This is what I get With Tiscali in the UK This is patch W

As you can see I receive access to about 6 -7% of all servers available Shots taken at 7PM

Master Server screens shows I can join 43 with 10 as no reply This is using Port 8080 for Master server as 29339 Will Not Connect
LFSWorld Graph Shows 683 Hosts

This is about as bad as it gets at 7pm with pings of around 50ms at normal non peak times for about the first 30 hosts but I still only get access to a max of about 80 - 90 servers at best of times

To make it worse i'm on Tiscali Max 8Mb line with tel and free calls anytime for £21 / Month

Hope all this helps As I'm Probably a worst case scenario

I wanted to take a screenie of my list, but no matter what I tried, I could not connect to the master server through the game
This was between 2000-2020 tonight...in the end I just gave up...
and when I think that I'm paying £20 per month for my connection, it makes me vomit!


Just a thought, what is the LOWEST port number I could use for both my dediserver and my game, and how would I get it to USE those ports...for some reason after I edit the cfg.txt file and start the game, it still reverts back to the default 29339

Bladerunner have you tried this :

Master port is now selectable in cfg.txt (29339 or 8080)

Just go into the cfg.txt file listed within LFS game folder scroll down about halfway and your probably on 29339 just erase and replace with 8080 and try and see if this works

Quote from CELTIC100 :

Bladerunner have you tried this :

Master port is now selectable in cfg.txt (29339 or 8080)

Just go into the cfg.txt file listed within LFS game folder scroll down about halfway and your probably on 29339 just erase and replace with 8080 and try and see if this works

yep...did that, but as I said above, it resets itself to 29339 as soon as I start LFS

Quote :

for some reason after I edit the cfg.txt file and start the game, it still reverts back to the default 29339

Update: 22.30
Just tried again, and WOW!..Flew through the list of available servers, and had about 20-30 servers pinging at UNDER 30ms!!

Now let my ISP try telling me that they aren't operating a 'traffic shaping' policy!
Actually considering going for a cheap 'business' package that actively states that it does not throttle any usage...it's more expensive, but I reckon the extra £5 a month would be worth the gain in racing time

It would be good to know what ports the above servers in the previous screen shots are set up to.

Can someone please help

Especially Conedodgers or Redline Racing

Celtic in your screenshots you have empty and private servers filtered out so they don't show up when you refresh lol That's why the list is smaller compared to lfsworld. There's only about 50 servers that are populated even though there are hundreds of servers. The XFR server runs on port 27005 and it's not on your list because it's usually empty and it should be on the list of ports not blocked.

What ISP are you with Bladerunner? Name and shame 'em
If all it achieves is stopping one LFS'er joining them that's a result.

I've been through months of hassle with Plusnet trying to get them to unblock ports, but eventually persistence paid off and i can now access the servers i like playing on (though not all servers yet during peak times).
Its worth hassling your ISP (in a friendly manner of course ) Ask them where in the contract it says they can stop you from gaming?

Quote from The Moose :

What ISP are you with Bladerunner? Name and shame 'em

I _WAS_ with Pipex, but yesterday went hunting, found a (supposedly) better deal, and requested my MAC code

I agree with the hassling them to unlock etc, however, I prefer to vote with my feet!!

For my new ISP, I have opted for a 'business' package, that will actually work out CHEAPER for me, as with current ISP/BT line/call package it comes in at around £50 per month, but the new one will cost me about £35-£40 depending if I go over 250 minutes of landline calls every month

My new deal gives me (up to) 8 Mb down/448kb up, and there are NO limits, and NO restrictions...in fact, being a business package the connection will IMPROVE at peak gaming times, cos all the business users have gone home for the night

I'm going to be a greedy bastard here, and not let on who the ISP is, cos when I get connected I will be able to 'recommend' people in return for a 'bonus'....and I also want to see how good it is first before telling anybody else

Quote from Bladerunner :

I _WAS_ with Pipex, but yesterday went hunting, found a (supposedly) better deal, and requested my MAC code

I'm with Pipex now, and awful is the way I'd describe their connection right now!

However I got around it by connecting to a DNS server of theirs that doesn't seem to get throttled at all. So for now, all is good! I connected to it through saved IPs i had in my router from ages ago when I first joined, but it just so happens those still belong to pipex and they still work!

So, anyone got any suggestions as to how server hosts can get round this problem. I guess they can just change the port defined in the cfg file can they? How would they know which port to choose?

Quote from Gentlefoot :

So, anyone got any suggestions as to how server hosts can get round this problem. I guess they can just change the port defined in the cfg file can they? How would they know which port to choose?

Trial and error. Ask their host. Failing that not much else.

They could of course move provider, be it their actual connection, or who provides their server.

As I have Said Before I have access to Conedodgers, Redline, City and Cruise, Clownpaint.....etc etc infact getting 350 to 450 connections but about 80 hosts I have problems with mainly through port throttling.

So it would be usefull if we could compile a list of ports that have no issues such as conedodgers etc.

It seems that the ISP's are getting a little sly as from Tiscali's Forums many subscribers are encountering difficulties with the main stream multiplayer games as well as MSN and even Voip being effected by over zealous packet shaping and port throttling.

My biggest problem is I cannot get access to any STCC server until after 11:30pm and now as I have recently found out Gentlefoots new racing server.

As Tiscali and Pipex are pretty much mainstream providers in the UK this must be affecting quite a few in number within the community

Quote from CELTIC100 :

As Tiscali and Pipex are pretty much mainstream providers in the UK this must be affecting quite a few in number within the community

Unfortunately Tiscali and Pipex are the lowest of the low (along with Talk Talk and Orange) in the broadband industry. They are all simply not suitable for gamers any longer. PlusNet are a bunch of shits, but at least they are open about their traffic shaping policy, and will try and get any gaming problems sorted out (though it CAN be a drawn out and frustrating process)

I'm definitely going to be changing ISP , but as I'm moving house i'll wait until then.
I still havn't decided who to move to, but it'll be between Be,Zen or one of the Entanet resellers by the looks of it. I know people on all three providers and they are all great for gamers in their experience.

Check out the latest ratings from DSLzone http://www.dslzoneuk.net/isp_ratings.php#
and do as Bladerunner has..demand your MAC and vote with your feet. There's a lot of decent ISP's out there who are gamer friendly.



A list of ports the different servers are using would be very handy though.
Why do so many hosts use so many different ports though, would be my question? In this day and age of traffic shaping it makes it very difficult for people who are stuck,for whatever reason, with ISP's that traffic shape.

Quote from The Moose :

Why do so many hosts use so many different ports though, would be my question?

I love how this is getting towards being dumped onto the hosters.

LFS hosters can choose to run a service on any port they like. There is no restriction, there is no reason to use a specific port over another for LFS from a hosters point of view. Unless you fancy the security through obscurity option (whilst this is no security, it stops someone for a bit). There's no IANA mandate that says LFS runs on port X.

Some people run multiple servers, such as UKCT, 500Servers, etc. all on one physical server (or set of servers), which due to how hosting works means that you have to put each server on a different port.

Hosts can do the best they possibly can to provide you with, invariably, a free service. Even if they're not providing a free service, all they can do is provide a best-endeavours level of support when the issue is outside of their control.

If the network you are connected to is causing the issue, then it's an issue you must take up with whoever provides your connectivity through that network.

I realise that asking your ISP will get you nowhere, because invariably the **** you get on the phone is a 1st line technical guy who's reading off the paper or screen for answers. I know how frustrating this can be, as I'm a paid IT engineer/Sysadmin/whatever and when I have issues with my own personal services and phone up I get mega frustrated when I'm telling the person at the other end why what they're telling me to do is bad advice (telling me how to flush my DNS cache will not help packet loss to my gateway, thank you Virgin media).

Quote from the_angry_angel :

I love how this is getting towards being dumped onto the hosters.

LFS hosters can choose to run a service on any port they like. There's no IANA mandate that says LFS runs on port X.

No ones dumping anything on the hosters. I asked a simple question on behalf of the many that in this day and age are restricted due to their ISP's draconian ways.
No need for your 'attitude'

Quote from The Moose :

No need for your 'attitude'

There was no attitude in that post, only simple hard fact and a smidgen of opinion in the first sentence that was arguably unjustified and I apologise. Remove that and I think it's perfectly reasonable rant

Quote from the_angry_angel :

Remove that and I think it's perfectly reasonable rant

I agree. Apologies for biting


The trouble with any ISP that uses packet shaping (and there's more doing it every day) is they will invariably do something about it if you ask them nicely, but with such a huge range of ports being used on a single game it starts to get impossible, especially at short notice.

Last night the UF1000 owners club league had a trial run, but at the last moment had to use someone else's server, and i had to pull out of the event due to the ports they were running on. Very frustrating as you can imagine.
I now have to find out the ports of any leagues servers that i wish to participate in weeks in advance to give my ISP a chance of unblocking them. Certain pick-up races are impossible to join in.

Obviously the solution is to change ISP, but i believe that all ISP's will introduce packet shaping eventually, simply because they cannot afford not to with P2P swamping their networks, if they are to provide an acceptable level of service for all their customers.

I'm not having a go at any hosts, I'm very grateful that these people pay for servers for our enjoyment. I was simply pointing out that if a narrower, more common range of ports were used for LFS (or any game for that matter) then it would make it a lot easier for an ever increasing amount of people to enjoy racing on whatever servers they chose to.

Quote from the_angry_angel :

I love how this is getting towards being dumped onto the hosters.

Not at all, the best part about LFS in my short stay here is the community spirit From the Dev's all the way down to the Newbie racer.

I,m just highlighting a problem that as a subscribed up member to LFS has encountered, and trying to pull parts of the community together to find a solution to the problem and in this case a compiled list of ports that the hosts can refer to in future that are known to be ok to use will eradicate the problems that Moose encountered in the above post and lets be honest it's not just me and Moose encountering these problems, so we as a community have to try and keep one step ahead of the current situation so to enable problem free racing in the future

This problem with the ISP's in my opinion will only get worse across the network in the UK until BT roll out there new super lines that are due to come online in the next 5 years and even then the ISP's may not backdown with Packet shaping and Port Blocking due to the fact that they seem to be getting away with it so easily at present.