Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Limiting Bandwidth Hogs on Public Wireless Nets?

Cliff posted more than 7 years ago | from the time-to-lay-out-the-speed-humps dept.

171

arglesnaf asks: "I'm a consultant and spend a lot of time on public wireless networks at client sites (mostly hospitals / universities), coffee shops, and hotels. Quite often, the problem is that some person is running BitTorrent and eating 100% of the bandwidth. The result is that I can't get email during the day or play World of Warcraft in the hotel. I have considered sniffing and spoofing TCP resets to free up some bandwidth but need an automated way to handle new BitTorrent connections. Does anybody have any ideas on how to automate the sniff and reset strategy, or other ways to carve out a little bandwidth from hogs on public wireless?"

cancel ×

171 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

slashdot still sucks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16408459)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

Uhm... (-1, Offtopic)

joto (134244) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408521)

Put your wireless interface between a router that allows you to throttle bandwidth. An old linux box is perfectly equipped for the task. man tc.

That's not the question (4, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408545)

I think there's an assumption here that he doesn't control the WL router.

E.g., it's a public router, like in a coffeeshop or hotel, but which doesn't have any QoS set up on it, so it's being abused.

He wants a way of essentially chiseling out some room on the commons, when the other guy is already over-grazing his sheep there.

Re:That's not the question (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408605)

Unfortunatly, I don't think there's any way this can be solved reliably other than the suggestion below to "modify" the settings on the WAP.

Course, if he's the consultant, perhaps he can consult the client sites on this. For a little investment can probably get a big return. The big guns who'd be using the WAP would not be torrenting, they just want to check their stock portfolio, so they'd be happy.

Re:That's not the question (1)

joto (134244) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409173)

So essentially, he wants to be able to control fairness on a public network, without having any other ability to control it than all the other people on the public network? Sorry, but that can't be done. Cooperation is your best bet. Walk over to the guy running bittorrent, and ask him to throttle his bandwidth ;-)

Re:That's not the question (3, Informative)

Ex Machina (10710) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409405)

The excellent network attack package dsniff [monkey.org] has a really cool utility tcpnice [debian.net] that may help.

Sounds like that's the solution. (3, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409703)

This seems like the closest thing to a solution I've yet seen in the thread. (I was hoping for "Stab People In The Face Wireless Protocol" but apparently it still hasn't been implemented.)

I wonder if running it slows down your own connection though, since you're constantly injecting packets into the other guy's connection.

Might he have to get another computer in order to run tcpnice, and then do his normal internet activities from another machine?

Re:Sounds like that's the solution. (1)

Ex Machina (10710) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409749)

I wonder if running it slows down your own connection though, since you're constantly injecting packets into the other guy's connection. Might he have to get another computer in order to run tcpnice, and then do his normal internet activities from another machine?
I think that most of the overhead would come from runing your network card in promisc. mode and having to have tcpnice "consider" each packet on the interface. The bandwidth overhead from actually injecting the packets is tiny. Running it on another computer wouldn't help overcome this tiny connection speed decrease because the bandwidth of the WLAN is shared among all members of the network. Of course, this would eliminate the (once again, very tiny) processing overhead of tcpnice.

Steps for getting bandwidth (5, Funny)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408523)

Step 1: Find wireless network with SSID "linksys" or "netgear"
Step 2: Point browser at gateway
Step 3: Log in with default password
Step 4: Change channel, change SSID, enable WPA-PSK, change password.
Step 5: ???
Step 6: Profit!

Re:Steps for getting bandwidth (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408819)

Sad thing is that this would work 50% of the time. Especially in any residential area or an appartment complex without lead paint under the wallpaper.

Re:Steps for getting bandwidth (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409151)

What really amazes me is the number of WAPs this applies to. When I'm traveling I hardly ever bother to find an actual public wireless spot, I just fire up Netstumbler and find one to borrow. Easier to find than a coffee shop, much less traffic, and no one in pantaloons smoking cloves sitting next to me.

Re:Steps for getting bandwidth (1)

smbarbour (893880) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409343)

How about this method instead of completely hijacking the router?

1) Gain access to the router controls
2) Place the offender's MAC on the ban list.

It's a little more transparent than kicking everyone off except yourself.

(If you're really creative and the capability is present, change the DHCP settings for the MAC such as don't assign a gateway address or assign it to a different subnet.)

Re:Steps for getting bandwidth (1)

SomeGuyTyping (751195) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410209)

but if he's already got IP/GW/DNS info, changing DHCP settings won't affect him until he needs to reacquire that info. You'd have to change the DHCP info, remove his dhcp lease and then disconnect him from the network somehow.

Re:Steps for getting bandwidth (1)

smbarbour (893880) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410511)

How about drop the banhammer and reboot the router/AP? That should do it. That will force the connection to drop, causing a new request for a DHCP lease. No one else will notice the downtime from the reboot since Mr. Hog is effectively blocking them anyway.

Re:Steps for getting bandwidth (1)

Doctor Memory (6336) | more than 7 years ago | (#16411195)

I think my WRT-54G allows me to force a disconnect for a particular connection. Don't most WAPs? ISTR I had to use this when I was trying to get a new laptop configured, and I wound up eating all my DHCP leases (I have it set to five to discourage mass leeching).

Offtopic question: do any consumer-grade WAPs support both WPA and WEP simultaneously? It's a hassle when my dad drops by, as his old laptop only handles WEP, and I've got all our systems at home configured to use WPA. Is there some technical (protocol-related?) reason why this can't be done?

obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16408533)

Might I suggest you hire a consultant to set up some usage policies?

Short answer: No. (5, Insightful)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408549)

I'm a consultant and spend a lot of time on public wireless networks at client sites (mostly hospitals / universities)

Get yourself an EVDO cellular modem. You can deduct it as a business expense. And stop trying to disrupt other peoples's connection.

If you have a problem with bandwidth hogs, complain to the WiFi service provider. Don't take the matter into your own hands. You are not the bandwith police, what you are doing is probably illegal.

Re:Short answer: No. (5, Insightful)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408591)

Exactly what I was going to say. A free wifi network is NOT your network. Just because someone else is being a asshat doesn't mean you need to be one as well.

Re:Short answer: No. (1)

arglesnaf (454704) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409095)

I concur, I'm not trying to be an asshat as well, its just that one person is ruining the wireless for the 40 or so others trying to use it.
see here [slashdot.org]

Re:Short answer: No. (0)

brunson (91995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409171)

So what? Are you the guy that plants his ass in the fast lane because you don't think people should be speeding? It's not your job to enforce the speed limit, it's the job of the police. It's not your job to make sure people don't hog bandwidth on a public access point, asshat, take it up with management or buy a cellular card.

Re:Short answer: No. (2)

arglesnaf (454704) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409331)

I already have spoken to management. The hospital wants to deploy whatever solution I come up with here, the hotel is supportive. One person can literally kill the connection, to the point you can't load google. This is not a question of policing, its a question of making wireless usable at all.

Re:Short answer: No. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409593)

Well in that case, if you have the cooperation of the hospital and hotel, why not replace the router with one that will take a more flexible firmware (like DD-WRT) and then enable its QoS controls? You can put almost all P2P stuff into the "Bulk" category, while putting WoW, HTTP, Citrix, and SSH stuff in higher categories.

Also, you could create a whitelist of known MAC addresses and give them higher priority than everyone else who just walks in off the street, and you can have the router's logs forwarded to a central location for analysis -- meaning that if it's someone on the whitelist who's hogging bandwidth, you can find them and settle it adminstratively.

The solutions available when you have control of the router are significantly greater (and veer less into vigilantism, although I don't think it's necessarily as unjustified as other people are making it out to be) than if you're just using it and don't have control.

Re:Short answer: No. (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410447)

I'm just wondering if /. is the right place to be asking about throttling BT bandwith? Might have better luck at TPB?

-nB

Re:Short answer: No. (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410847)


Well in that case, if you have the cooperation of the hospital and hotel, why not replace the router with one that will take a more flexible firmware (like DD-WRT) and then enable its QoS controls?

Because he's "just some guy" using the network, not the network administrator. He doesn't want to administrate the network, and the people who run the network don't want to go to all the trouble of pulling out one solution that works (minus the hogs).

It seems to me the solution of disrupting peoples network connections who're hogging the bandwidth is a perfect solution for all involved. If done correctly it only interrupts the p2p guys, and if there's some problem with it, you can just turn it off without having to troubleshoot and fix what's broken. There's probbably ways around this solution, but I doubt the p2p guys hogging bandwidth are going to be sophisticated enough to even realize what's going on. Anyone that has the knowledge to get around this kind of disruption isn't likely to be using a free wireless connection for p2p apps, they'll p2p from home.

Example script (2, Informative)

autocracy (192714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410973)

I use these settings for iptables and tc on my network gateway box for ensuring that even when it's under heavy upload & download conditions, latency will still be low (my ssh sessions used to kind of suck). The idea is the link can always be fully utilized, no one grouping of traffic gets the entire reservation group, and things should (and have) remained fast for all. If you can't figure this out between the advanced ip routing documentation (google) and my script, get in touch with me and I'd be happy to consult for your client to implement a suitable solution.
# cat /etc/network/br0-up.sh
#!/bin/sh
#Masquerade ball!
iptables -t nat -F
iptables -t mangle -F
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o br0 -j MASQUERADE

#Setup general policing goodness
tc qdisc del dev eth0 root
tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb default 10
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 365kbit

#General traffic
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb rate 120kbit ceil 365kbit prio 2
#Limit general traffic backlog
tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:10 handle 100: bfifo limit 12000b

#Priority (small) traffic -- UDP, small SSH, ICMP, small ACK, SYNs
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:11 htb rate 120kbit prio 0

#Common bulk interactives
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:12 htb rate 125kbit ceil 365kbit prio 2
tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:12 handle 120: sfq perturb 10

#Let iptables tag things
#Prority (small) queue
tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 1 handle 1 fw flowid 1:11
#HTTP Queue
tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 2 handle 2 fw flowid 1:12

#Small packets are fast packets
iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -m length --length 0:128 -j MARK --set-mark 0x1
iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -m length --length 0:128 -j RETURN
iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -p icmp -j MARK --set-mark 0x1
#certain ports get higher traffic ratings
iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 80 -j MARK --set-mark 0x2
iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j MARK --set-mark 0x2
iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 5190 -j MARK --set-mark 0x2
iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --sport 22 -j MARK --set-mark 0x2
iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 22 -j MARK --set-mark 0x2
#DNS gets the faster lane
iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -p udp --dport 53 -j MARK --set-mark 0x1

Re:Short answer: No. (2, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409285)


Exactly what I was going to say. A free wifi network is NOT your network. Just because someone else is being a asshat doesn't mean you need to be one as well.

Well, my argument would be it's not the bandwidth hogs network either. If someone were blasting really loud music in a public space, would anyone but the music blaster complain if you were able to send sound cancelling noise to block the loud music (and do it in a perfect way that only stopped the loud music)?

In this case the guy isn't being an "asshat" at all since he's also making the network useable for everyone. I'd be more worried about legal implications of doing this than someones strange morality of being against inteferring with other peoples breaking of a network.

Re:Short answer: No. (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409687)

I'd be more worried about legal implications of doing this

Can you say DoS attack?

As someone said, if its that important to you, get a "mobile network" solution, whatever is applicable in your country (in australia we have one supplied by telstra that is dog slow, but useable for MMOG).

Short answer: Unlimited (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16409827)

Well as long as no one said that the "wireless network" is "unlimited". The "asshat" has nothing to fall back on. Unlike other "abusers"of the "commons" [hint, hint].

Re:Short answer: No. (4, Interesting)

Erwos (553607) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408633)

The guy who sent in the question may not appreciate EVDO or HSDPA, because, IIRC, latencies are much higher. While this isn't a big deal for web or email usage, it's going to be painful on WoW.

Then again, if the business is paying for it, that's quite acceptable.

Re:Short answer: No. (2, Insightful)

Primis (71749) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408877)

Then again *still*, whether he can play WoW or not in a hotel is a rather stupid, frivilous issue and one not even worth commenting on. That alone speaks to the original question poster's mentality, right there, that it is somehow a "priority" over everyone else's traffic...

Re:Short answer: No. (1)

bcat24 (914105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408985)

Word. I let out a little chuckle when I got to that part of the article. I can understand emailing and web surfing on an open wifi connection, but who says his WoW is more important that the other guy's BitTorrent? Personally, I think they're both bandwidth hogs. :)

Re:Short answer: No. (1)

arglesnaf (454704) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409023)

Its not about priority, it's just a demonstration of the same issue. The ping time to the second hop gets as high as 3000ms due to bandwidth saturation.

I live in a hotel every weekday for the last seven months and have asked the hotel about the bandwidth problem, and they are supportive of this approach. They know one or two guests are ruining the internet access for everybody, and wish they could do something about it. Since it is a corpoarte big chain hotel they do not have the ability to implement their own solution seperately.

Re:Short answer: No. (1)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408899)

Well the submitter has two separate issues: 1. How to get proper bandwdith so he can properly do his consultant job. 2. H0w to k1ck da lam3rz 0ff th3 W1F1 to k1ll da l@g on my W0W gamez.

I answered question 1.

Re:Short answer: No. (1)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408931)

Also... will I ever be able to spell bandwidth properly today?

Re:Short answer: No. (2, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409737)

Umm, that wasn't the only spelling error you had.

Just an FYI.

Re:Short answer: No. (3, Interesting)

arglesnaf (454704) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408793)

What you find many times if you talk to a Hotel Manager or Coffee shop owner they realize it is a problem and have no way to deal with it. They will tell you they wish they had an easy way to throttle these people, without investing in things like inline IPS / bandwidth management.

Most of my clientel is small city midwest, and EVDO is not an option.

At the hospital I am at today the IT security people think it is a great idea. Since they outsource their wireless management and the provider refuses to deal with it, they think using a wireless IPS like solution to limit hogs is their only way to fix it.

I came up with the idea to ask slashdot after talking to my Hospital client and the manager of the hotel I normally stay at. Abusing the network by eating all the bandwidth is not someones right, and not all wireless providers are capeable of ensuring equitable wireless access.

Re:Short answer: No. (1)

plover (150551) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409493)

they wish they had an easy way to throttle these people

Sneak up behind these people with a short piece of rope held between your hands, loop it over their heads, and pull. They are then throttled. [princeton.edu] Easy.

To make it easier, do it one person at a time.

Re:Short answer: No. (1)

Hizonner (38491) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409649)

Um, get a smarter provider? I know they're mostly pretty stupid, but they can't all be that stupid. Your clients didn't all do anything really dumb, like signing up for a long-term contract with a crummy provider, did they?

As for self-help, it makes no sense to say that they don't want to invest in inline bandwidth management, and then suggest that they invest in an equally expensive packet-sniffing, RST-sending hack. That hack is going to be just as hard to administer, and is going to involve just as much equipment, as doing the shaping the right way. If you think the inline bandwidth management gear is more expensive, you're not looking for it in the right places. If you think administering the hack is easier, you're just insane.

The right way to do the bandwidth management, by the way, is per-endpoint fairness, not anything that looks at port numbers.

... and it sort of sounds like maybe these networks are under-engineered in the first place...

Re:Short answer: No. (3, Insightful)

CXI (46706) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409961)

I have considered sniffing and spoofing TCP resets to free up some bandwidth but need an automated way to handle new BitTorrent connections. Does anybody have any ideas on how to automate the sniff and reset strategy, or other ways to carve out a little bandwidth from hogs on public wireless?"

When you want to know about the correct way to do it, you ask about QoS and other bandwidth limiting methods. You do NOT, as you've done, talk about TCP resets and "automated sniff and reset strategy".

Re:Short answer: No. (1)

Bender0x7D1 (536254) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410319)

I'm not sure if this applies, but is there a way to change to Point Coordination Functionality (PCF) instead of Distributes Coordination Functionality (DCF)? PCF means the AP will "ask" each connected system if they have something to transmit. They don't just send it out and hope there aren't any collisions like in DCF. If it was set up in a round-robin style, you would get your x% of the bandwidth - as long as you had something to send.

Don't know what settings would have to be changed on the AP or client system. (Or if they even have that built into their management console.)

MAC Modes [wi-fiplanet.com] .

Re:Short answer: No. (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410455)

Do they have control of the access point's OS? With Linux you can rate limit layer 7 in the firewall (with the right tools), and there's always QoS.

Re:Short answer: No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16410477)

As the other poster mentioned, if you are talking about "sniffing and spoofing TCP resets" as a way to control network flow, perhaps you should consider you might not be the right person for this task.

If you want it done right, you are going to use a wireless router that can set up QOS queues. Anything else is a nasty ugly broken hack.

What if you're the network admin? (1)

OlivierB (709839) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408569)

I'm currently thinking of setting up a Fon acces point at home (www.fon.com) however I am worried that some people will just go stupid and hog all the bandwith.
Is there anyway to limit individual bandwith to approx 150kps?

Re:What if you're the network admin? (3, Informative)

Yonder Way (603108) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408643)

Use OpenBSD as your gateway OS and set up queues so that BitTorrent is allowed on its well known ports, but carve out dedicated bandwidth as well for other services like imap, smtp, http, https, etc. to make sure they always have priority over torrents. You can prioritize the queues so that interactive services like ssh and http/https will pre-empt bandwidth from bulk transfer services like BitTorrent and ftp. The amount of control you have with pf is any geek's dream. You can even go so far as to say that hosts running Windows get put in a lower priority queue than hosts running anything else. :)

D-Link DSA-3100 works great (2, Informative)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410523)

It is more expensive than an old computer with OpenBSD on it, but it very simple to set up and is very easy to limit the speed of users by class.

We had a hotel with a 1.5Mb wireless connection that had a movie downloader just hammering us night and day. Not only was it killing the service for other users at the hotel, it was killing service for other users all over our wireless network.

Solution: We talked the hotel into getting a D-LINK DSA-3100. I had it installed in an afternoon, the hotel had a captive portal to boot, and everyone got a smaller but much fairer share of the bandwidth.

We have not had hardly a single issue with that hotel since the router was installed.

And note that this router replaced a semi-high-dollar secure router...that hung up under heavy traffic left and right.

Transporter_ii

Re:D-Link DSA-3100 works great (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410845)

Solution: We talked the hotel into getting a D-LINK DSA-3100. I had it installed in an afternoon, the hotel had a captive portal to boot, and everyone got a smaller but much fairer share of the bandwidth.


I recently installed a DSA-3200 (the successor to the 3100) and I can't figure out how to make usage fair. I can limit the overal bandwidth used for each authentication group, which is great because we use our T1s for other things besides wireless, but how do I limit bandwitdh per protocol or make usage fair? Did you just take the problem user(s) and put them on their own group? As far as I can tell, a single user can still hog the limited amount of bandwidth for the group.

Hopefully the 3100 didn't have features that were left out in the 3200. ;-P

-matthew

 

Re:What if you're the network admin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16410699)

Apparently iptables + l7filter patch seems to be able to check whether the packets are BT or not.

Re:What if you're the network admin? (1)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408657)

Setup QoS. If using something like DD-WRT, fairly easy to do it on the router itself to throttle everyone.

Re:What if you're the network admin? (1)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408713)

Prioritized Internet Sharing for Home Users? (from the bandwidth-preservation dept.) [slashdot.org]

Even a plain jane Linksys router has basic QoS support. I have mine setup to prioritize port 25, 110 and 80.

Re:What if you're the network admin? (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410537)

If you have a WRT54x router, are you still using the original firmware? I had very little luck getting prioritization of packets through its QOS to work right. The DD-WRT seems to work a lot better, wondering if I'd missed something in the factory setup (though now that I think about it I think I was prioritizing by switch port, but that shouldn't matter I wouldn't think).

Re:What if you're the network admin? (1)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410675)

I implemented QoS because the wife was complaining about Web surfing and email problems when I was saturating the bandwidth. The complaints have stopped. I guess it's working ;-)

DIY or off the shelf (1)

akb (39826) | more than 7 years ago | (#16411135)

To DIY, put a distribution like OpenWRT [openwrt.org] on something like a Linksys WRT54G, that will give you all the flexibility you need to setup bandwidth management.

For an off the shelf solution, the Asus 500gl has various bandwidth management features. Haven't used it myself but it seems worth a look.

Do you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16408573)

really work for the the MPAA/RIAA and want to find a way to kill the somewhat anonymous usage of bittorrent on free public wi-fi?

Re:Do you... (1)

Raistlin77 (754120) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409161)

Nah, the questions would have been from Anonymous Coward if that were the case.

Reboot the router (1)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408609)

Go and unplug the router. Most likely, anyone using bittorrent is leaving the computer unattended so, dropping thier connection will likely keep them from reconnecting, particularly if the hotspot is using nocatauth.

Though it it was properly setup, they would just have QoS set on the router, so no one person could be a hog.

Re:Reboot the router (1)

hauntingthunder (985246) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409209)

Or

maybe forceing all the Stations to reassociate might do the trick not sure if bit torent waits for reconection in that state.

I suggest (4, Funny)

Acy James Stapp (1005) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408677)

You go from room to room asking if anyone is running bittorrent. When you find someone who is, shoot them and close bittorrent. I think any judge would consider this reasonable, after all it's *your* bandwidth they're stealing, and clearly thoes denied their WoW fix can't be expected to behave entirely rationally.

Re:I suggest (1)

camusflage (65105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409195)

clearly thoes denied their WoW fix can't be expected to behave entirely rationally.

Jack Thompson, it's good to see you've seen the light. Can you please stop going after Take Two now, mmmmkay?

Are you in my hotel? (2, Funny)

SafariShane (560870) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408809)

I could have written the same question, except that I don't play wow (anymore). There is literally no bandwidth to be had at my hotel from 8pm till midnight, 4 nights a week. I totally understand how frustrated this guy is. I've been staying in the same hotel for 6+ months now, and it's only in the past 6 or 7 weeks, that it's been a bandwidth nightmare. I totally suspect someone is simply hogging it all, and would love to find out which room needs 11 towels and a toothbrush at 3am.

You kids these days... (2, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409513)

It was fun getting online while travelling, back before public connectivity was widespread. I used to pack my hefty old 486 portable with a modem cord with alligator clips on the end (beige box style) and some straight pins of the type normally used for sewing. If you could stick two pins into the phone cord at different spots, one touching the "ring" line and the other touching the "tip," you could clip your modem onto those pins and get online without having to explain to some backwater motel clerk (or whoever else owned the line you were fiddling with) what BBSes and Usenet were all about, and your work would be pretty much undetectable afterward.

You kids with your wireless networks and your rock-n-roll and your hula hoops and your big pants... Get off my lawn!!

Re:You kids these days... (1)

SafariShane (560870) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409721)

I used to use PAP to connect. Some really old /.ers might remember that protocol. Pen and Paper?

Re:You kids these days... (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410073)

I could never figure out Sneakernet protocols.

Easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16408897)

Take a goatse jpg. Find the SMB shared folder of the person using bittorrent. Upload the goatse image to the folder, rename it, and upload again. Repeat until their harddrive is filled up. BT cannot continue downloading due to insufficient space, and since they're running Windows, it'll probably start working really slow. Problem solved.

Numerous ways to effectively deal with this. (1)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16408941)

Virtually every access point, router, controller sold on the market today comes complete with bandwidth control functions built in to them.

Familiarize yourself with QoS, Contenet Filtering, and bandwidth throttling via caping per-user throughput.

If the traffic and workload are too heavy for small router configurations in attempt to gain control of the issue, one should seek out companies like WatchGaurd, St. Bernard, Baracuda, and many more. These are content filtering hardware manufacturers. They produce exclusive devices that do this exact task. Depending on your influence on the design of the network and budget, a content filter is always going to be the best answer. Control times, site urls, meta tag filters, etc are all normal functions of these pieces of equipment and the work very well. These are often times found in educaion networks where kids pound the network with YouTube video requests, Limewire traffic, and IM nonsense.

Lastly, I do not intend to sound insluting here, but if a 'consultant' were to be 'consulting' Slashdot for ideas on how to control things like QoS, I'd be questioning the actual hands-on-knowledge of said 'consultant' and wondering if that person/company were the right ones to choose for handling my networks.

Re:Numerous ways to effectively deal with this. (1)

arglesnaf (454704) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409499)

I am not a consultant for this, I simply happen to be consuming these services. I happen to be consulting for something completely different, and just need wireless access.

Barter consulting time for services (2, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409053)

Step 1: Find a solution you could impliment cheaply if only you had permission.
Step 2: Buy the coffee shop or hotel manager lunch. Explain that they have a problem and that you are willing to fix it in exchange for goods and services. Explain how this will make life better for all their customers.
Step 3: After getting permission, fix the problem.
Step 4: Enjoy the coffee or free room-nights.
Step 5, required in some countries :( : Pay self-employment taxes on value of bartered goods.

Step 6: Use reference to get a better job than the one you have :)

Re:Barter consulting time for services (1)

peacefinder (469349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409963)

Excellent idea. For Step 1, I suggest looking at this comment. [slashdot.org]

Of course, it may be that the AP already supports QoS and it just needs to be configured. If not, running OpenBSD's PF as a bridge on a Soekris 4801 [soekris.com] (or equivalent low-power box) with compact flash for mass storage would allow him (with the owner's permission) to place it upstream of the access point and forget about it. The whole thing is US $300-$400 plus time.

(It could be done even cheaper on a salvaged old computer, of course, but the reliability would be lower and power consumption much higher.)

um, I'm a little supprised... (2, Informative)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409069)

.. that you are asking that in public. What you are asking to do is possibly against the computer abuse and fraud act. You are asking to disrupt someone elses connection by 'hacking/cracking' thier traffic.

I'd suggest you go to the front desk and tell them that you are having problems with the wireless. That you are staying in this hotel because they have internet access. I'd suggest that you tell them someone needs to look into the situation or move you to another hotel. Tell them that you suspect that someone is doing something against the law ( I know running bit torent is not against the law ) and taking up all the bandwidth. Who knows you can drop in the comment, I think that someone is running an unlawful site and allowing people to download pirated movies and that the MPAA and RIAA may come after the hotel and sue them. That would get their attention.

Complaining often works!

Re:um, I'm a little supprised... (1)

arglesnaf (454704) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409281)

I actually already have complained. See this post [slashdot.org] I've been living in this hotel for the past 7 months and they know they have a problem and are powerless to fix it. They know one or two guests ruin the connection for everybody, but their outsourced wireless provider isn't fixing things. The Hospital has the same problem. Both are supportive of the idea of interrupting the bandwidth hogs to use the connection. (I actually consult for the Hospital security dept, they can't get the outsourced wireless provider to do anything about it, and would like to deploy whatever solution I come up with.)

Re:um, I'm a little supprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16410137)

Why have you been living in a hotel for 7 months? You would have been much better off to get a 6-month lease on an apartment.

Re:um, I'm a little supprised... (0)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410379)

because he's alan partridge. the next slashdot submission will be "how do you make pornography come on my tv?" or "does anyone fancy a drink?"

Re:um, I'm a little supprised... (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410863)

Well if you are a security consultant, than you should know some network security guys. Ask them and I'm sure one of them would be happy to consult or point out a consultant who could fix them right up. If they can't get permission to replace the wireless equipment they have, but you have physical access to the wireless access points and the central tie-in to the cable/dsl/T1 or whatever, drop in an IP-less OpenBSD machine between them, and have it throttle the users.

*chuckle* (3, Interesting)

TrebleJunkie (208060) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409193)

...ya bitch about The Next Guy hogging your bandwidth, and yet most of you clamour for "Net Neutrality."

Irony.... glooooorious irony.

not that simple (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409471)


Comparing a coffee shop or hospital to an ISP is a bit much, don't you think?

The ISP has common-carrier status. They have regulations that assume they are neutral and treat all traffic equally, in return for various benefits. Also, in many cases there is no real competition. If the ISP decides to go non-neutral, there really isn't any way around it.

If there were many local ISPs, each with a different set of bandwidth rules, and they actually *advertised* those rules and charged a fair price for the various options, I suspect most people would be satisfied. However, as it is, most places only have one or two high speed providers, which really isn't enough competition for that sort of scenario.

A non-neutral wifi connection in a coffee shop is a whole different ballgame. They are offering it as either a free or paid service, and the terms on which they offer it are completely up to them. If they guarantee each customer a certain amount of bandwidth, or preferentially allow email, shell, and web traffic while throttling bulk downloads, I suspect that many of their customers would be happier. They could even advertise it...and the bulk downloaders could then go somewhere else or live with reduced speeds.

Chris

Re:*chuckle* (2, Informative)

bucky0 (229117) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410285)

That would be really ironic and funny if that was the argument against NN at all.

The argument about NN isn't about whether or not ISPs should be able to give certain type of traffic greater priority over the others (I.E. making VOIP take higher priority over HTTP)

The argument about NN is whether or not ISPs should be allowed to give certain organizations higher priority than others. What the submitter is talking about is prioritising HTTP over Bittorrent, which most wouldn't disagree about. What NN supporters are talking about is whether or not Comcast should be allowed to throttle back Vonage or Skype connections and give preference to their own VOIP service.

It's a small point, but significant, if you run it through your head.

-cheers

Re:*chuckle* (1)

kinkos (789876) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410421)

...ya bitch about The Next Guy hogging your bandwidth, and yet most of you clamour for "Net Neutrality."

Irony.... glooooorious irony.
I don't know about you, but i'd be pretty pissed if i was out trick-or-treating this halloween and watched some schmuck dump the bowl into his bag instead of reading the "Please Take One" sign the senior citizens left out =/

Re:*chuckle* (1)

TrebleJunkie (208060) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410875)

But at the same time, if the candy bowl is owned by an ISP, and the trick-or-treaters are companies like Google or YouTube, you want them to be able to take all the candy they want, as long as they give it to you, with --no-- consideration given to the ISP.

Re:*chuckle* (1)

kinkos (789876) | more than 7 years ago | (#16411073)

But at the same time, if the candy bowl is owned by an ISP, and the trick-or-treaters are companies like Google or YouTube, you want them to be able to take all the candy they want, as long as they give it to you, with --no-- consideration given to the ISP.
You're distorting the analogy. We're talking about a public wifi access point. The OP was unjustly juxtaposing a free wifi access point with ISPs. My analogy demonstrates the difference between the OP's comment and the submitter's point of view.

Besides, if i run a public access-point, i expect people to play nice and fairly with the bandwidth. The difference between my *free* public-access wifi and someone like google using an ISP's bandwidth is that google et al have *already paid* for their bandwidth. The ISPs want to make google et al pay *extra* for *preferential* bandwidth. That's what the whole net neutrality debate is about.

Re:*chuckle* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16410549)

*sigh* ...only on Slashdot can such an uninformed, blatant troll be modded Interesting.

Net Neutrality [wikipedia.org] concerns QOS at the ISP level, not the LAN level. Hello, anyone home McFly?

Let's hope meta-moderating catches whoever is stupid enough to think this is "Interesting."

Re:*chuckle* (1)

TrebleJunkie (208060) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410829)

They're the same issue though -- taking a finite resource (bandwidth on particular pipes) for granted and expecting it all for nothing at the expense of the bandwidth's provider, never mind that that provider *owns* his infrastructure and can and should part it out or prioritize it or charge for it whatever he wishes.

lower your mtu or go to starbucks (3, Informative)

ufnoise (732845) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409249)

If you reduce your mtu, you might be able to squeeze some packets through and reduce latency. At least that is what I did when sharing a 56K modem connection. This also helps when your webbrowser is trying to download multiple images simultaneously.

Otherwise, go to Starbucks and pay $.10 cents a minute, because hardly anyone else will.

Discuss it with the owner (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409273)

It depends a little on the organisation. In some cases (typically the smaller ones), there will be a technically minded IT guy running this who doesn't experience the problems himself but would appreciate the feedback, and make appropriate adjustments to the router.

Spoof some ARP packets (3, Insightful)

haydenth (588730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409321)

We used to have this problem when I lived in a house where 10-15 people shared a wireless connection and none of us had admin access to the router. We couldn't play XBOX live or anything because some asshat was downloading porn on bittorrent constantly. I used to just spoof ARP packets and have all of the traffic route through me, whereby I'd summarily kill all of his traffic and mess up his routing tables.

best solution (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409359)

The proper way to handle this problem is for the hotel to install an intelligent LAN router that can limit bandwidth for each user. This solution is protocol independent and not easily bypassed.

Idea~ (1)

BobSixtyFour (967533) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409435)

Customize bittorrent to receive/deliver your email, then loadup your modified bittorrent client and have both clients automatically fight out the bandwidth.

Okay... (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409451)

Isn't WOW a bandwidth hog?
Sort of seems like you are asking how can I kick off OTHER bandwidth hogs?
Or how do I control a free open network I don't own?

Okay...

No (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16409597)

WoW is actually quite low bandwidth, on par with web browsing. Doesn't often hit 3k per sec. WoW would be playable on a 28.8 modem if your latency is low enough.

airpwn (1)

fmwap (686598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409457)

I've never actually used it because I'm too cheap to buy another 802.11 adapter, but from what I've read airpwn [sourceforge.net] can do this, although I'm not sure how scriptable it is.

I know it did some fun things with goatse injection at defcon [evilscheme.org]

You are the most selfish Prig I know (1)

MerlynEmrys67 (583469) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409577)

So let me get this straight. For your convienience you are using a free service - then complaining about the service that you receive.

Hate to tell you buddy... If you want to get a good clean connection - work from home, setup your own network - brew your own coffee, and get the quality that you need. If you want to sit in a coffee house and drink overpriced drinks, talk loudly on your cell phone, and use their connection to gring your Tier II gear in WoW - Well, you get what you pay for.

Now quit whinning and let the bandwidth hogs do what they need to do as well.

Re:You are the most selfish Prig I know (1)

arglesnaf (454704) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409675)

I posted this above, but am reposting here:

What you find many times if you talk to a Hotel Manager or Coffee shop owner they realize it is a problem and have no way to deal with it. They will tell you they wish they had an easy way to throttle these people, without investing in things like inline IPS / bandwidth management.

Most of my clientel is small city midwest, and EVDO is not an option.

At the hospital I am at today the IT security people think it is a great idea. Since they outsource their wireless management and the provider refuses to deal with it, they think using a wireless IPS like solution to limit hogs is their only way to fix it.

I came up with the idea to ask slashdot after talking to my Hospital client and the manager of the hotel I normally stay at. Abusing the network by eating all the bandwidth is not someones right, and not all wireless providers are capeable of ensuring equitable wireless access.

Re:You are the most selfish Prig I know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16409915)

Nice try, however the following statement in your original question shows that the above rationalization is just damage control:

I have considered sniffing and spoofing TCP resets to free up some bandwidth but need an automated way to handle new BitTorrent connections. Does anybody have any ideas on how to automate the sniff and reset strategy, or other ways to carve out a little bandwidth from hogs on public wireless?"

When you want to know about the correct way to do it, you ask about QoS and other bandwidth limiting methods. You do NOT, as you've done, talk about TCP resets and "automated sniff and reset strategy".

Re:You are the most selfish Prig I know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16410071)

Wirless IPS and spoofing TCP resets to throttle bit torrent are the exact same thing.

Is it just me... (2, Insightful)

Samurai Cat! (15315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409895)

...or does this fellow complaining about BitTorrent users eating up bandwidth preventing him from eating up that same bandwidth playing WoW just seem... kinda... ironic? :/

Why was this even posted here? (1)

singingjim (957822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410107)

The whole premise is ludicrous. Quit wasting our time.

QOS (1)

mahesh_gharat (633793) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410185)

I had implemented QOS (Quality of Service) using Class Based Queuing (CBQ) approximately 4 years ago on a Linux box. I use to limit bandwidth hogged by the ubiquitous P2P clients those days. I hope this kind of solution will still work in the current environment.

If story poster were on MY wireless network... (2, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410303)

...and I caught him fucking with connections, especially MINE, I'd walk the 800+ foot radius from my router, circle around the router at that distance, find this bastard and BEAT HIS ASS.

This is not your network, pal. Quit trying to fuck it up. First come, FIRST FUCKING SERVE.

*WHIIIINE* I Can't play my life-sucking WoW because of the Pir8s on BT!!!11one.

Gimme a fucking break.

Re:If story poster were on MY wireless network... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16410721)

This is not your network, pal. Quit trying to fuck it up. First come, FIRST FUCKING SERVE.

Are you sure you know how the internets work? There is no such thing as "first"

so.... (1)

Lxy (80823) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410757)

What you're saying is that some guy running bittorent doesn't have a right to bandwidth, but you do? Do you know the definition of "public network"?

Grow up already.

I'm an Student... (3, Funny)

UnifiedTechs (100743) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410825)

"I'm a Student and spend a lot of time on public wireless networks at my university, coffee shops, and hotels. Recently I have noticed the alot of disconections in my Bittorent of linux distro's I need to download for my CS thesis. The result is that I can't my thesis completed, during the day I have noticed someone playing World of Warcraft without any problems. I have considered sniffing and spoofing TCP resets to free up some bandwidth but need an automated way to handle new connections. Does anybody have any ideas on how to automate the sniff and reset strategy, or other ways to carve out a little bandwidth from hogs on the wireless sytem that my college tuition pays for?"

It will be harder in a year or two (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#16411059)

someday, maybe soon, the majority of file-sharing traffic will go over port 80.

It will be harder to distingish file-transfer-over-port-80 traffic from someone who is just mirroring slashdot.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>