Deep packet inspection engine goes open source (ars technica)

Posted Sep 9, 2009 14:48 UTC (Wed) by ajb (subscriber, #9694)
Parent article: Deep packet inspection engine goes open source (ars technica)

Even if it doesn't read the contents of the packets, why would we want our ISPs to discriminate based on protocol?

A more useful approach would seem to be the re-ecn system, currently attempting to enter the IETF standards process: (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/re-ECN). This is intended to expose the minimum necessary for ISPs to cleanly arbitrate between users: information about congestion. Currently only endpoints can easily observe congestion (well, it's slightly more complicated than that, but I'm not sure I understand the details).
The idea, as I understand it, is that ISPS will be able to provide good response to interactive applications, while allowing background transfers like bittorrent to soak up the rest, rather than being clamped as currently. nice(1) for the internet. If it works.

Deep packet inspection engine goes open source (ars technica)

Posted Sep 9, 2009 19:28 UTC (Wed) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link] (2 responses)

> Even if it doesn't read the contents of the packets, why would we want
> our ISPs to discriminate based on protocol?

What makes you think on ISPs will find this tool to be useful? I could see it being used to enforce company computing and network policies.

Deep packet inspection engine goes open source (ars technica)

Posted Sep 9, 2009 19:43 UTC (Wed) by ajb (subscriber, #9694) [Link] (1 responses)

The whole DPI controversy is about its use in ISPs. No-one cares what corporates do on their own networks.

From IPOQUE's press release: "A general problem is the lack of transparency from the vendors' side, which makes Internet users afraid of this technology".

Deep packet inspection engine goes open source (ars technica)

Posted Sep 9, 2009 19:52 UTC (Wed) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

The real solution to the ISP problem is to force ISPs to publish their network policies. At least it would be a first good step. Then customers can see what is really going on. Similar to how people are forced to publish the contents of food items sold in the stores.

DPI is just a tool, and a potentionally very useful one for lots of networks... even ISPs. It does not even mean throttle or blocking. Tools like Wireshark and Snort do similar things, and I am thinking (just now) that quite possibly this code could be used to improve those products!

Deet packet inspection engine goes open source (ars technica)

Posted Sep 10, 2009 1:24 UTC (Thu) by ras (subscriber, #33059) [Link] (7 responses)

> Even if it doesn't read the contents of the packets, why would we
> want our ISPs to discriminate based on protocol?

Simple. ISP's have different classes of users. The vast majority are casual users who just do webby type things, but there are a few heavy users who doing P2P type stuff. But in the US there is a problem: both types of users get charged the same amount. Ergo, the US ISP's make their money off the webby users, and have to put up with the P2P users are have come along for the "all you can eat" ride. The US ISP's solution: when resources become tight keep the people you make money off happy by throttling the people who came along for the ride.

This is another solution: usage based charging. With usage based charging the P2P users are your highest spending users. This has a remarkable effect on the ISP's attitude to them. It literally does a 180 degree switch: P2P users going from "our worst customers" to "our highest spending".

How do I know? Because I live in Australia, and that is what happens here. Australian ISP's positively encourage you to use P2P. They literally throw away DCMA notices, and when taken to court about that by the Music/Movie companies fight it all the way to our highest court. When comparing their actions to their US (or indeed European) ISP cousins, the contrast could not be more stark.

This has an interesting side effect. There is no "network neutrality" debate here in Australia. Oddly enough, it turns out provided ISP's get paid for roughly the amount of service they provide they are perfectly happy to treat all bytes equally. It is simpler for them. No need for DPI gear, no need to tell lies about there being an unlimited account, no need to think of weasel words to put into contracts and Acceptable Usage Policies, no need to fire employees who mistakenly tell the truth. It is so easy when all you have to do is count the bytes and charge accordingly.

Deet packet inspection engine goes open source (ars technica)

Posted Sep 10, 2009 2:16 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (6 responses)

ISPs in the US used to charge more for more useage.

after some companies started offering unlimited usage accounts (for more money than others were charging for the limited usage accounts by the way) people started buying the unlimited accounts instead and over time just about all accounts are now unlimited.

so it's not a matter of people being reluctant to offer tiered accounts, it's that users are unwilling to put up with it.

similar things are happening in the cell phone space where per-min accounts are moving to unlimited time or unlimited rollover accounts (and per text SMS accounts are being replaced by unlimited texting accounts)

Deet packet inspection engine goes open source (ars technica)

Posted Sep 10, 2009 2:49 UTC (Thu) by ras (subscriber, #33059) [Link] (5 responses)

Yes, I am aware the US ISP's would love to move to usage based charging. It would be better for everyone if they could find some way to do it. The net neutrality issue will disappear for a start.

In Australia, we got lucky. The US carriers had a monopoly in the early days, and so in the traditional US way they stung us with unbelievably high peering fees. The bastards. We tried the "we will pretend this is an unlimited account" thing for a while, but the limits had to be set so low it didn't work out. So now we are one of the few countries where sanity prevails.

I, like you, can't see any easy path to creating a saner charging model now. Please excuse my obvious gloating. I can't help but enjoy watching those same US carries flail around in the mess their "take no prisoners" approach to competition created.

Deet packet inspection engine goes open source (ars technica)

Posted Sep 10, 2009 5:53 UTC (Thu) by TRS-80 (guest, #1804) [Link] (2 responses)

No, the real reason Australia has usage-based plans is because of the cost of getting traffic from the US. Undersea cables cost a lot of money and this is reflected in Australian ISP costs. ISPs in the US just peer with other ISPs for free and maybe pay a little in actual transit to a Tier 1 or 2 network, since most of the content is located in the US.

Deet packet inspection engine goes open source (ars technica)

Posted Sep 11, 2009 7:18 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm thinking of moving to an ISP that has a hybrid approach.

The standard account is both capped and unlimited - between 0600 and 2359 there are usage based limits for which you get charged if you go over. Between 0000 and 0559 there's no limit, but if it gets congested then tough.

Cheers,
Wol

Deet packet inspection engine goes open source (ars technica)

Posted Sep 14, 2009 14:37 UTC (Mon) by nye (subscriber, #51576) [Link]

Most of the better, more expensive ISPs in the UK work this way[0]. I've been very happy with this model, especially in comparison to the cheaper 'unlimited' accounts which come with arbitrary throttling, blocking, shaping, and caps - all of which are kept secret so you can never know exactly what you're paying for, and whether you're getting it.

[0] When I say 'more' expensive, I'm excluding 'most' expensive - it's possible to get a truly unlimited account if you're willing to pay enough - like something which probably resembles my total salary.

Deet packet inspection engine goes open source (ars technica)

Posted Sep 10, 2009 6:04 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

instead of the net nutrality debate you have the great firewall debate

Deet packet inspection engine goes open source (ars technica)

Posted Sep 10, 2009 6:14 UTC (Thu) by ras (subscriber, #33059) [Link]

> instead of the net nutrality debate you have the great firewall debate

Yeah, go on, just rub my nose in it.