AUS COMPUTERS 26 RE BACKGROUND ADSL TRAFFIC WAS TPG INTERNET IS CRAP
From: nick@no-spam (Nick Andrew)
Subject: Re: "Background" ADSL traffic [Was: TPG Internet is CRAP]
Date: 1 Jul 2003 16:12:49 +1000


ppnerkDELETETHIS@no-spam (Phred) writes:

>The ABC talk-back guru I mentioned elsewhere just now, also said this >morning (that's actually *Monday* morning now :) that people can get >caught with ADSL 24/7 connections because the "background" download >traffic (presumably in and out) for an "always on" connection can >amount to around 10MB/day, or around 300MB/month.

That's an interesting point. First we need to define which data we're talking about though. There's the packet header and payload to consider,
as well as PPP protocol data. ISPs typically count all IP data: packet header (e.g. 40 bytes for TCP) plus data. I don't think any ISPs would count PPP protocol data (encapsulating IP packets, or echo requests,
or echo responses, etc).

So basically the ISP just counts all your IP data. Some of those packets were requested by the user (web browsing and so on) and some are unsolicited (port scans, pings, spammers looking for open relays).

My definition of "background" traffic is just the unsolicited stuff.
It's impossible to eliminate this entirely: we're on a public network and it's very easy to scan a few million IP addresses from a single host.

In the 5 hours between 02:00 and 07:00 this morning my (atypical) link did about 1 Mbyte in and 0.6 meg out. That's about 230 megs per 24 hour period. However my link is never idle; there are always TCP sessions going in and out, various monitoring happening, email spam being received.

Consequently I would guess that background traffic is closer to 3 megs a month than 300 megs, and this talkback guru is full of it.

Nick.
-- http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/
Do not send me email copies of postings. Keep it in USENET please.


From: "G Hutch" (ghutch@no-spam)
Subject: Re: "Background" ADSL traffic [Was: TPG Internet is CRAP]
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:11:19 GMT

Nick You are right.
There are a range of headers and overheads.
However most ISPs don't bill for all that.
You can also log onto some sites and not get billed.
One can check Big ponds billed traffic on an hourly basis. My router reports Tx and RX packest all the time.
Over a night of no activity, I only seem to get billed for 0000-0059 period of about 1-2Mbytes.
The rest seems unbilled.
Greg
"Nick Andrew" <nick@no-spam> wrote in message news:bdr8p1$9vm$1@no-spam > ppnerkDELETETHIS@no-spam (Phred) writes:
>
> >The ABC talk-back guru I mentioned elsewhere just now, also said this > >morning (that's actually *Monday* morning now :) that people can get > >caught with ADSL 24/7 connections because the "background" download > >traffic (presumably in and out) for an "always on" connection can > >amount to around 10MB/day, or around 300MB/month.
>
> That's an interesting point. First we need to define which data we're > talking about though. There's the packet header and payload to consider,
> as well as PPP protocol data. ISPs typically count all IP data: packet > header (e.g. 40 bytes for TCP) plus data. I don't think any ISPs would > count PPP protocol data (encapsulating IP packets, or echo requests,
> or echo responses, etc).
>
> So basically the ISP just counts all your IP data. Some of those > packets were requested by the user (web browsing and so on) and some > are unsolicited (port scans, pings, spammers looking for open > relays).
>
> My definition of "background" traffic is just the unsolicited stuff.
> It's impossible to eliminate this entirely: we're on a public network > and it's very easy to scan a few million IP addresses from a single > host.
>
> In the 5 hours between 02:00 and 07:00 this morning my (atypical) link > did about 1 Mbyte in and 0.6 meg out. That's about 230 megs per 24 hour > period. However my link is never idle; there are always TCP sessions > going in and out, various monitoring happening, email spam being received.

>
> Consequently I would guess that background traffic is closer to 3 megs a > month than 300 megs, and this talkback guru is full of it.
>
> Nick.
> --
> http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/
> Do not send me email copies of postings. Keep it in USENET please.


From: "G Hutch" (ghutch@no-spam)
Subject: Re: "Background" ADSL traffic [Was: TPG Internet is CRAP]
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 07:44:04 GMT

Rod Why comment on everything, when its not necessary and you don't always add value.
I find a lot of your comments to be inaccurate.

I have identified a lot of continous traffic most of which is "UNBILLED".
The ISPs only bill certain types of traffic an it depends where it goes.
Greg
"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@no-spam> wrote in message news:bdslt4$10hcb9$1@no-spam >
> G Hutch <ghutch@no-spam> wrote in message > news:b7dMa.376$P84.6325@no-spam >
> > Nick > > You are right.
> > There are a range of headers and overheads.
> > However most ISPs don't bill for all that.
> > You can also log onto some sites and not get billed.
> > One can check Big ponds billed traffic on an hourly basis.
>
> Nope, the actual data returned is nothing like hourly.
>
> > My router reports Tx and RX packest all the time.
> > Over a night of no activity,
>
> Not even email polls ?
>
> > I only seem to get billed for 0000-0059 period of about 1-2Mbytes.
>
> Clearly nothing like the original terminally stupid claim of 10MB per day.
>
> > The rest seems unbilled.
>
>
> > "Nick Andrew" <nick@no-spam> wrote in message > > news:bdr8p1$9vm$1@no-spam > > > ppnerkDELETETHIS@no-spam (Phred) writes:
> > >
> > > >The ABC talk-back guru I mentioned elsewhere just now, also said this > > > >morning (that's actually *Monday* morning now :) that people can get > > > >caught with ADSL 24/7 connections because the "background" download > > > >traffic (presumably in and out) for an "always on" connection can > > > >amount to around 10MB/day, or around 300MB/month.
> > >
> > > That's an interesting point. First we need to define which data we're > > > talking about though. There's the packet header and payload to consider,
> > > as well as PPP protocol data. ISPs typically count all IP data: packet > > > header (e.g. 40 bytes for TCP) plus data. I don't think any ISPs would > > > count PPP protocol data (encapsulating IP packets, or echo requests,
> > > or echo responses, etc).
> > >
> > > So basically the ISP just counts all your IP data. Some of those > > > packets were requested by the user (web browsing and so on) and some > > > are unsolicited (port scans, pings, spammers looking for open > > > relays).
> > >
> > > My definition of "background" traffic is just the unsolicited stuff.
> > > It's impossible to eliminate this entirely: we're on a public network > > > and it's very easy to scan a few million IP addresses from a single > > > host.
> > >
> > > In the 5 hours between 02:00 and 07:00 this morning my (atypical) link > > > did about 1 Mbyte in and 0.6 meg out. That's about 230 megs per 24
hour > > > period. However my link is never idle; there are always TCP sessions > > > going in and out, various monitoring happening, email spam being received.
> >
> > >
> > > Consequently I would guess that background traffic is closer to 3 megs a > > > month than 300 megs, and this talkback guru is full of it.
> > >
> > > Nick.
> > > --
> > > http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/
> > > Do not send me email copies of postings. Keep it in USENET please.
> >
> >
>
>


From: "Rod Speed" (rod_speed@no-spam)
Subject: Re: "Background" ADSL traffic [Was: TPG Internet is CRAP]
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:46:03 +1000

G Hutch <ghutch@no-spam> wrote in message news:83wMa.180$gw4.3769@no-spam > Rod > Why comment on everything,

I dont.

> when its not necessary
You get no say what so ever on what is necessary. Ever.

> and you don't always add value.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your predicament better than that pathetic effort, Hutch.

> I find a lot of your comments to be inaccurate.

You dont get to 'find' anything at all, except your dick, Hutch.

And it was YOU that chose to comment on something of mine,
and made a very spectacular fool of yourself indeed when you did.

> I have identified a lot of continous traffic most of which is "UNBILLED".

Easy to claim.

> The ISPs only bill certain types of traffic an it depends where it goes.

Duh.

Pity that has sweet fuck all to do with your stupid comments on the terminally stupid claim THAT BIGPONG ADSL CAN HAVE 300MB A MONTH OF BILLED TRAFFIC WHEN THE SYSTEM IS ALLEGEDLY IDLE.

Keep digging. You'll be out in china any day now.

> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@no-spam> wrote in message > news:bdslt4$10hcb9$1@no-spam > >
> > G Hutch <ghutch@no-spam> wrote in message > > news:b7dMa.376$P84.6325@no-spam > >
> > > Nick > > > You are right.
> > > There are a range of headers and overheads.
> > > However most ISPs don't bill for all that.
> > > You can also log onto some sites and not get billed.
> > > One can check Big ponds billed traffic on an hourly basis.
> >
> > Nope, the actual data returned is nothing like hourly.
> >
> > > My router reports Tx and RX packest all the time.
> > > Over a night of no activity,
> >
> > Not even email polls ?
> >
> > > I only seem to get billed for 0000-0059 period of about 1-2Mbytes.
> >
> > Clearly nothing like the original terminally stupid claim of 10MB per day.
> >
> > > The rest seems unbilled.
> >
> >
> > > "Nick Andrew" <nick@no-spam> wrote in message > > > news:bdr8p1$9vm$1@no-spam > > > > ppnerkDELETETHIS@no-spam (Phred) writes:
> > > >
> > > > >The ABC talk-back guru I mentioned elsewhere just now, also said this > > > > >morning (that's actually *Monday* morning now :) that people can get > > > > >caught with ADSL 24/7 connections because the "background" download > > > > >traffic (presumably in and out) for an "always on" connection can > > > > >amount to around 10MB/day, or around 300MB/month.
> > > >
> > > > That's an interesting point. First we need to define which data we're > > > > talking about though. There's the packet header and payload to > consider,
> > > > as well as PPP protocol data. ISPs typically count all IP data: packet > > > > header (e.g. 40 bytes for TCP) plus data. I don't think any ISPs would > > > > count PPP protocol data (encapsulating IP packets, or echo requests,
> > > > or echo responses, etc).
> > > >
> > > > So basically the ISP just counts all your IP data. Some of those > > > > packets were requested by the user (web browsing and so on) and some > > > > are unsolicited (port scans, pings, spammers looking for open > > > > relays).
> > > >
> > > > My definition of "background" traffic is just the unsolicited stuff.
> > > > It's impossible to eliminate this entirely: we're on a public network > > > > and it's very easy to scan a few million IP addresses from a single > > > > host.
> > > >
> > > > In the 5 hours between 02:00 and 07:00 this morning my (atypical) link > > > > did about 1 Mbyte in and 0.6 meg out. That's about 230 megs per 24
> hour > > > > period. However my link is never idle; there are always TCP sessions > > > > going in and out, various monitoring happening, email spam being > received.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Consequently I would guess that background traffic is closer to 3 megs > a > > > > month than 300 megs, and this talkback guru is full of it.
> > > >
> > > > Nick.
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/
> > > > Do not send me email copies of postings. Keep it in USENET please.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>