Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is AIM Really a Bandwidth Hog?

Posted by Cliff on from the a-danger-to-those-with-small-pipes dept.

Crispen asks: "A mess of schools, especially K-12 schools in the US, have banned instant messaging, claiming that it is a huge bandwidth hog. Is it? If you block ports 4443 (images) and 5190 (file transfers), how much bandwidth does AIM really take?"

6 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. pr0n by Bastian · · Score: 1, Funny

    duh.

  2. Re:Not Bandwidth - Tracking and Filtering by skaffen42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The bandwidth use is negligible .. especially in these days of cheap bandwidth for education (we have a full DS3 45Mbps for a 7500 student district).

    Holy crap! So what you are actually saying here is that starting a school is the solution to all my broadband problems?

    :)

    --
    People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
  3. Not IMO by n1ywb · · Score: 4, Funny

    Before our campus moved to a fully switched LAN, I used to use Ethereal to sniff my whole dorm's AIM traffic in real time. 80 people, not that much traffic. Even in the evening at peak utilization it was easy to keep up with, no worse than a busy IRC channel. So IMO AIM is not a bandwidth hog.

    The protocol itself is not as efficient as it COULD be. I did notice occasional repeated messages, and signon/signoff messages are repeated frequently. But we're still talking about piffiling small bandwidth.

    PS I'm just kidding and I didn't actually do anything that I've described in this post. By reading this post you agree that I didn't run a sniffer, or reverse engineer AIM's protocol just by watching it's traffic in a sniffer.

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
    1. Re:Not IMO by n1ywb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Belive it or don't, I did not once observe cybersex. I think it's a myth.

      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
  4. Whoops by MacAndrew · · Score: 2, Funny

    PS I'm just kidding and I didn't actually do anything that I've described in this post. By reading this post you agree that I didn't run a sniffer, or reverse engineer AIM's protocol just by watching it's traffic in a sniffer.

    Ah, you put your condition at the end. I can't agree to something by reading a post without knowing the condition first. Plus there's the questionable enforceability of ERLA's (end-reader user agreements).

    But don't worry. You've already done far more to publish your self-incrimination than I could possibly expand upon. Besides, "gossip wants to be free." :)

    Now, where do I pick up encrypted AIM?

  5. Re:This is too bad. by scotch · · Score: 2, Funny
    Turns out he didn't have winzip but that's another story.

    Sounds like an exciting story!! Please, do tell!

    --
    XML causes global warming.