Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: How To Diagnose Traffic Throttling and Work Around It?

Aguazul2 writes "I live in Peru and use OpenVPN to connect to my own Linux VPS in the UK for non-live TV. Recently the VPN connection has slowed to a crawl (5% previous rate). Further investigation shows that all connections to my VPS from Peru (even HTTP) are equally slow, whilst the rest of the 'net seems fine. My VPS host says they do no traffic shaping, and connections from Germany to the VPS are fast. This leaves the NSA and Telefonica (Movistar) as suspects. Could the NSA be slowing all VPNs to/from South America because of Snowden and Greenwald? A traceroute shows traffic going through domains with NYC in their name — are my packets being indefinitely detained in transit? Or maybe it is Telefonica and their Sandvine traffic management? Either way this certainly isn't network neutrality, especially on an 'unlimited' plan. Is there a way to tell for certain who is throttling me? If Telefonica have throttled traffic to/from that one IP address, what options do I have to work around it? It seems that separate connections are throttled independently, so can I multiplex over many UDP ports without having to hack OpenVPN myself? This is really frustrating, especially with two untrustworthy parties on the route. I wonder, is this kind of mess the future of the internet?"

251 comments

  1. I use longer words by For+a+Free+Internet · · Score: 4, Funny

    Try breaking free of the binary straightjacket. I transmit all my data in ternary and it is untraceable and unstoppable. This gives me unlimitered bandwidsh to post my brilliant world-changing essays and thoughts on Slashdort, the Facebook of the Internet!

    --
    UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
    1. Re:I use longer words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Once again, mods have no sense of humour.

    2. Re:I use longer words by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, we think that the original poster is the one without a sense of humor.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:I use longer words by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Ah, using the evil bit I see... don't move, unmarked black choppers will be with you shortly.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  2. NSA by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've had a client I provide consulting for suggest that their poor connectivity is also in some way due to the NSA. People need to understand that it is paramount to the NSA that they are covert. They do not need to do real-time processing of the data: that is only necessary for filtering. It suffices for them to simply capture raw data for later analysis or decryption as necessary. Of course capturing data does not result in any slowdown or other noticeable effects. It does not make any sense whatsoever for the NSA to be slowing or otherwise blocking connectivity, as that is counterproductive to the acquisition of intelligence data.

    It's just amusing to me to see NSA as the scapegoat of the day for any quirk anyone experiences related to computers or connectivity in general.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:NSA by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's just amusing to me to see NSA as the scapegoat of the day for any quirk anyone experiences related to computers or connectivity in general.

      No one ever got fired for buying... I mean blaming the NSA. :)

    2. Re:NSA by hedwards · · Score: 5, Informative

      Indeed.
      But, even in China where they do filter the internet, there isn't any real throttling that goes down, the main thing I saw when I was there was abysmal latency. It would have the effect of killing of websites that weren't blocked, when the website was expecting to load dozens of scripts from various other servers. Each one would have up to 2.5 seconds of latency attached. And yes, that is seconds, not often, but there were a few times when my ping was measurably with a human timer.

      More likely, this is some sort of broken link somewhere along the way that's resulting in the traffic being slowed.

    3. Re:NSA by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      People need to understand that it is paramount to the NSA that they are covert.

      Indeed. When working for a company that sold telecom and networking IP blocks, we received more than one request for the receive part ONLY of an Ethernet MAC. The companies that enquired did not make test equipment, but were known for secrecy and selling to the US government. What possible reason does such a company have for an Ethernet MAC that receives only?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:NSA by ron_ivi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It suffices for them to simply capture raw data

      Lol. You have no idea what suffices for them.

      And even if "capture raw data" suffices - if the bandwidth to their traffic caputring room is at capacity, they very well may tell the upstream switches to slow down so they can "capture [all] raw data".

      Until there's enough transparency; it's at least as reasonable to blame the NSA for using lots of bandwidth to cause conjestion as it is to blame all those movie-pirates for using all the bandwidth.

    5. Re:NSA by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unless you're an NSA whistleblower, in which case you are fired and prosecuted.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:NSA by hacker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They do not need to do real-time processing of the data: that is only necessary for filtering.

      That may be true for passive surveillance (http traffic, emails, IMs), but most-definitely not for VPNs, as in this specific case.

      You absolutely need to trap the packets in real time in order to actually break the VPN connection open so you can get at the actual payload (cleartext, post-decrypted) data within the stream. The initial cryptographic handshake has to be captured, in order for them to peel it open and get inside.

      You can't do that days later, when all you have is an encrypted stream of bits.

    7. Re:NSA by jamesh · · Score: 1, Redundant

      They do not need to do real-time processing of the data: that is only necessary for filtering.

      That may be true for passive surveillance (http traffic, emails, IMs), but most-definitely not for VPNs, as in this specific case.

      You absolutely need to trap the packets in real time in order to actually break the VPN connection open so you can get at the actual payload (cleartext, post-decrypted) data within the stream. The initial cryptographic handshake has to be captured, in order for them to peel it open and get inside.

      You can't do that days later, when all you have is an encrypted stream of bits.

      They only need to know that the citizen is using an encrypted VPN. This implies that they have something to hide and are therefore a suspect, and actual evidence no longer matters.

    8. Re:NSA by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It does not make any sense whatsoever for the NSA to be slowing or otherwise blocking connectivity, as that is counterproductive to the acquisition of intelligence data.

      That's generally true. The NSA is competent. But not all government agencies are... and not all of those agencies work for the United States either. So I can't conclusively tell you (nor can anyone else) that it isn't the result of some law enforcement action that's causing your internet connection to behave strangely. What I can tell you, is that it's pretty unlikely.

      The more likely explanation is QoS being implimented that targets either based on IP, subnet, port, or content. Content-aware QoS is pretty rare, but it is out there. Alternatively, it could be a misconfigured router, or an oversaturated link. Traceroute and measuring the latency during TCP handshakes to various ports both to the destination of interest and elsewhere would help identify this. Lastly, it may not even be network-related; it could be the server itself that is slow, or the application it is running on. In today's 'cloud all the things!' service model, there are all kinds of weird performance glitches due to complex interactions within the cluster. For example... several data centers bought the (server) farm during the last addition of a leap second, as circuit breakers tripped out due to sudden load spikes.

      The fact is, without a lot more information from the OP, this question simply can't be answered. It could be one of dozens of different things... all we can do is give odds on the likelihood of what it might be... and I'd put the NSA pretty far down the list. The 'NSA Effect' is the same thing happening now in the media that caused people to beat the crap out of random muslims out of 9/11, or jerkwads in Florida to shoot black kids -- perception and media attention creates a new social reality. Social reality is not based in actual reality, however... but it's stuff like this that gives rise to all kinds of prejudices -- racism, sexism, religious persecution... it's ironic that the NSA's surveillance policies are based on such faulty logic ... and now they are the victim of it as well. Ah, but I digress... short answer: Your router doesn't need a tin foil hat.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    9. Re:NSA by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      The reality is that every hop adds it's own latency to the mix. This could be part of the problem with the NSA doing what it does.

    10. Re:NSA by noh8rz10 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WOW is this what the world is coming to? anywhere in the world, when there's a bad internet connection, the first question is "is the NSA throttling me?" HINT: the NSA won't throttle you, they'll spy on everything you do.

    11. Re:NSA by icebike · · Score: 2

      It does not make any sense whatsoever for the NSA to be slowing or otherwise blocking connectivity, as that is counterproductive to the acquisition of intelligence data.

      Normally I would agree with you, but since "THEY" (the generic they) are forcing Presidential planes to land, detaining boyfriends, seizing electronics, what makes you so sure some arm of the US government isn't deliberately slowing or blocking binary transfer streams in an attempt to stop Snowdens 400gigabyte cache of information from spreading ?

      (I suspect his Peru ISP is lying to him, but still I consider the possibility of intentional interference).

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    12. Re:NSA by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

      what is an encrypted VPN? I thought all VPNs were encrypted?

    13. Re:NSA by arekin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hi, my facebook wont load and is showing more adds when it does. Do you think this could be the NSA snooping on my facebook and pushing me to buy audiobooks that will contain subliminal messages to hate Snowden and freedom?

      --
      Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
    14. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      u can have a tunnel without encryption if u don;t need the overhead

    15. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some ISPs may be using Phorm-like transparant proxies to rewrite some scripts, so they can overwrite other ad servers with their ads. This can cause latency, provided they can intercept an unencrypted stream.

    16. Re:NSA by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I think the submitter's theory was that the NSA man-in-the-middle data capturing would slow down the connection.

    17. Re:NSA by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given that they did, in fact, cause poor connectivity for critical west coast trunk connections at AT&T with the "bent fiber optic" taps installed in Room 641A, it seems that interfering with a typical customer's bandwidth is not their highest priority. While there are ways in many environments to tap data surreptitiously and at full bandwidth, such setups are often quite expensive and instead done with less sophisticated, possibly slower devices and bandwidth throttled to allow full data capture.

      I've certainly seen this in industry when monitoring a network problem, where we throttled the bandwidth so our monitors could keep up and analyze who was abusing our systems.

    18. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please type properly.

    19. Re:NSA by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      deliberately slowing or blocking binary transfer streams in an attempt to stop Snowdens 400gigabyte cache of information from spreading ?

      For some reason, my torrents on Comcast (CentOS, Fedora, Mint) are running at full speed, except for those three. transmission-daemon FWIW.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    20. Re:NSA by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Informative

      But the NSA isn't in the business of routing data; it's in the business of mirroring data. This means that you get something like:

      source
              |
      router A
              |
      router B --> NSA
              |
      router C
              |
      destination

      So if router B is up to the task of sending the signal down a fixed path as well as whatever BGP indicates, there should be no slowdown. If it isn't, that's going to be a constant issue, not something that varies. It's either good enough for the volume of data it is exposed to, or it isn't. There's no analysis happening at the router, and the NSA isn't doing stateful inspection.

      More likely a QoS issue by some stateful router in the hop chain, or even a corrupted BGP table.

    21. Re:NSA by dubbreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can type in full words with very little overhead.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    22. Re:NSA by _merlin · · Score: 5, Informative

      In finance we use them for performance monitoring and debugging. You have machines with CDMA or GPS time sources logging packets captured from passive taps on each side of your switches, routers, servers, etc. It lets you produce very accurate and detailed latency statistics. Also when things go wrong you have an exact record of everything that went in or out on the network to help you reproduce and fix it. Admittedly we don't actually get NICs with the transmit functionality removed, but the passive taps prevent anything transmitted from going anywhere, so we get a similar effect.

    23. Re:NSA by sacrilicious · · Score: 2

      it is paramount to the NSA that they are covert.

      Not any more.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    24. Re:NSA by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 2

      He's using a new form of encryption. I bet even the NSA won't be able to crack that one.

    25. Re: NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why blame the NSA when it's the FBI that holds the domestic surveillance brief?

    26. Re:NSA by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      it is paramount to the NSA that they are covert.

      Not any more.

      Yes, exactly. How long before passive monitoring becomes active manipulation of streams. "Wouldn't it be great", they say, "if we could stop the terrorist communications from arriving". "Wouldn't it be great if we could stop the Guardian sending all our secrets to/from South America". I know the difference between passive monitoring and messing with packets, but I don't think I'm being too paranoid to think that some part of US cyber defence might think it a good idea to slow down VPNs as an 'emergency measure'. Well, probably it is my ISP but still.

    27. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, NSA tech guy, we really don't think you should be listening in on our business plan and buying up stock before we announce the acquisition...
      Lotta non-poilitical reasons why a person might want to encrypt communications. I do have something to hide AND I'm not doing anything wrong.

    28. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends upon what u mean by "fired"!

    29. Re:NSA by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      At least he didn't use "ur", which can only reasonably be pronounced as the first syllable of the word "urgency" (and preferably with an elongated "r" sound as in "arrrrrrr matey").

      I chooce to pronounce "u" as just the first sonant of "urgency". I know it's only slightly better than writing "u" instead of "you", but it makes it sound more like the mouthbreathing way it was probably intended.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    30. Re:NSA by real-modo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes.

      Better stop using Facebook--in fact, the entire internet--now. Discuss this feeling of yours with your doctor, and then use all the free time you'll have to learn scrimshaw and grow tomatoes.

    31. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there may be something to it. In CALEA the call connection maybe delayed until monitoring leg is ready. In this case I would not be so sure that NSA is at fault at least not in the sense that monitoring causes delays to the extent described in TFA.

    32. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes

    33. Re:NSA by victorhooi · · Score: 1

      Hi,

      I also work/worked in that space - apart from operational reasons, it's (passive data capture) is also used for various trading reasons.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    34. Re:NSA by AK+Marc · · Score: 2
      Kim Dotcom identified NSA tapping before the raid on him due to his connection being re-routed to go through the tapping gear. If the NSA wanted to install gear just for him, it would never have been known. But he identified NSA tapping because they do, in practice, cause issues on lines they tap (outside the USA, in the USA, they get a secret warrant and the LI rules require the local phone company tap for them).

      It's just amusing to me to see NSA as the scapegoat of the day for any quirk anyone experiences related to computers or connectivity in general.

      It's just amusing to me to see people like you indicate it's impossible, when it's provably happened before, and nothing's been done to stop it from being done again.

    35. Re: NSA by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      Because the FBI is doing US domestic surveillance. The NSA is doing non-domestic surveillance. And I don't think Peru is part of the US.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    36. Re:NSA by Tyr07 · · Score: 2

      Actually that's not entirely true. You're basing it on an entirely technical stand point of 'If I have control over this device, do I need it to slow down the internet as a side effect of me capturing their packets' The answer is no. The issue is when a targets traffic is not routed through the most ideal pathway and through devices you do not control to capture packets. Or the device itself does not have the ability to do it. An example would be a major node where a ton of traffic goes through, it may not be practical for routing reasons for it to sift and record a specific IP's traffic, or all etc. What you might be able to do, is route that specific IP's traffic somewhere else, which then records the packet and forwards it onto it's destination. Man in the middle attack. The problem you run into is that your network path is no longer optimal, which leaves you getting latency issues. Although not directly due to the recording of the packets, but due to the altered pathway to direct your traffic. If a recording server is in new york, and you live in california, and connect to a california service, you may notice a delay if it gets routed to new york first.

    37. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the last intelligent user left facebook last month?

    38. Re:NSA by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Do you think this could be the NSA snooping on my facebook and pushing me to buy audiobooks that will contain subliminal messages to hate Snowden and freedom?

      You're starting to sound angry again. Maybe you need another treatment.

      Back to re-education camp; to write lines; repeat after me. "Terrorists want to kill us. The NSA protects our freedom. Without NSA snooping, Snowden, the 9/11 hijackers, and other terrorists will destroy America."

    39. Re:NSA by jamesh · · Score: 1

      what is an encrypted VPN? I thought all VPNs were encrypted?

      You can use GRE or IPIP tunnels to make a VPN which will be completely unencrypted. I normally use IPSEC over the top of that where encryption is required.

    40. Re:NSA by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone's saying it's impossible the NSA is responsible for slowing down his VPN (and only his VPN). I think what they're saying is it doesn't make the Top 10 list of possible suspects because it would be fairly trivial for the NSA to get his VPN data without doing so (and thus tipping him off).

      If he was Wikileaks/Snowden's guy in South America I'd believe the NSA could convince somebody to send his data through their servers, and that they might screw with him on purpose. But that's not what he said. What he said is "Could the NSA be slowing all VPNs to/from South America because of Snowden and Greenwald?"

      I can't think of a scenario where the NSA convinces every ISP in the US to send all packets from a specific region through their servers. If they did the first clue wouldn't be one guy's VPN, it would be everyone's VPN.

    41. Re:NSA by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      But this guy is in Peru. He's talking to the UK, not Boise, and the transatlantic cables to the UK run through places like NYC all the time. So the NYC servers don't exactly scream sub-optimal data path.

      Moreover his idea isn't that the NSA is screwing with him personally, it's that the NSA is screwing with all VPNs on an entire continent.

      I don't think it's technically possible for the NSA to intercept all VPNs from South America, and only VPNs from South America, in such a way that all VPNs from South America get throttled.

    42. Re:NSA by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      They do not need to do real-time processing of the data: that is only necessary for filtering.

      They do real-time processing, though.

      However, real-time processing does not need to introduce any more delays than mere capturing would do, namely almost zero in both cases if the traffic is unencrypted. To be fair, a MitM attack on a VPN probably would introduce a delay.

      It's just amusing to me to see NSA as the scapegoat of the day

      It's not amusing.

    43. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only problem here, you assume that goverment organisation is competent. Hate to break it to you, guys at NSA are not that good.

    44. Re: NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting information isn't all the NSA does, especially not right now. I could think of a couple of reasons why encrypted connections from specific UK providers to specific South American ones might be throttled.

      The latest wikileaks insurance file was hundreds of gigabytes.

      Rather than dismiss it out of hand, better to run some tests.

    45. Re:NSA by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What possible reason does such a company have for an Ethernet MAC that receives only?

      Anything from a higher classified system that is to deliver data to a lower classified system, for example you need to get data from extremely sensitive military satellites to battle commanders in the field and it needs to happen in real time, you can't have total network separation. Then you generate a one-way feed where there is physically no possible way for anyone to connect to the feed and hack themselves backwards through routers into the satellites. And of course you put a ton of code review, surveillance and logging on the sending system to make sure it doesn't send more than it should, but that's not relevant to this discussion. So there's a lot of valid reasons for the military to buy this besides the NSA.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    46. Re:NSA by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      Okay. NYC was purely an arbitary example. I do not know where the NSA would route connections, should they decide or are able to route connections. It's entirely possible that it could be in space, and that was sub-optimal as you were not trying to communicate with a server located in space. And I didn't say all VPN's. I said, traffic from an IP address. It's possible that he is actually being targeted. Maybe they don't really care, and are just looking because someone used that IP previously or who knows. Also lots of thinks are technically possible. Viruses, botnets etc, can do a lot.

    47. Re:NSA by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I seem to recall that Kim Dotcom realized he was being spied on long before the raids due to seeing his latency spike and seeing that traffic was being routed an odd way.

      I think you overestimate the NSA's competence. Snowden was a leak waiting to happen. Read Bruce Schneier's analysis.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    48. Re:NSA by lightknight · · Score: 1

      "It's just amusing to me to see NSA as the scapegoat of the day for any quirk anyone experiences related to computers or connectivity in general."

      Well, you know how it is in IT. Anyone who has computer-related skills, last seen in the vicinity of the machine, when it stopped working, is suddenly suspect. They're just experiencing what everyone else in IT has experienced for decades...and getting a dose of their own medicine. The paranoia they've created, plus the problems those backdoors / other tricks have caused were slightly less than trivial; up until now, other people were dealing with it, and the NSA, heh, was getting a free ride; the NSA could create malware, and others would pay the price; the NSA could tap into people's lives, and others would pay the price.

      How many times has law enforcement used one of their wonderful 'devices,' only to end up breaking something for everyone else in the process? I imagine the judges / legislative bodies think that these devices, once plugged in, are hidden / stealth devices, and never cause any unforeseen side effects. They certainly aren't responsible for any widespread outages (business wise), or the with-holding of upgrades because law enforcement needs certain versions of software that if you upgrade, it will suddenly be incompatible. Nah, has never happened. "Oh yes, lie to the customer about why this can't be upgraded...lose their business if you have to...gag order LOL."

      But very nice, the part about the NSA being used to steal our competition's secrets...their IP, I mean. Less about national security, more about national economic security.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    49. Re:NSA by heypete · · Score: 4, Informative

      You absolutely need to trap the packets in real time in order to actually break the VPN connection open so you can get at the actual payload (cleartext, post-decrypted) data within the stream. The initial cryptographic handshake has to be captured, in order for them to peel it open and get inside.

      You can't do that days later, when all you have is an encrypted stream of bits.

      I'm not sure I follow: how would capturing the cryptographic handshake help with "peeling open" the VPN connection? The handshake itself is secure: OpenVPN running in TLS mode (the most common mode) exchanges symmetric keys using an ephemeral Diffie-Hellman key exchange, with the key exchanged signed by the server's RSA key. Both client and server are authenticate to each other using certificates, so they can be sure that there's no man-in-the-middle. Unless one knows how to solve the Diffie-Hellman problem and one has a sensible configuration (i.e., sufficiently large DH parameters and RSA keys, good choice of symmetric cipher, etc.), capturing the cryptographic handshake doesn't really gain the attacker anything.

    50. Re:NSA by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      I think the submitter's theory was that the NSA man-in-the-middle data capturing would slow down the connection.

      I know that the NSAs monitoring (as described so far) is passive. My theory is that they would quite happily throttle all 'suspicious' high-bandwidth encrypted streams if they could get away with it. And they have been getting away with quite a lot recently. If a few choke-points like that develop on the internet where encryption == slow, then what kind of an internet is that? I hope we don't get to that point.

    51. Re:NSA by Aguazul2 · · Score: 2

      The 'NSA Effect' is the same thing happening now in the media that caused people to beat the crap out of random muslims out of 9/11, or jerkwads in Florida to shoot black kids -- perception and media attention creates a new social reality. Social reality is not based in actual reality, however... but it's stuff like this that gives rise to all kinds of prejudices -- racism, sexism, religious persecution... it's ironic that the NSA's surveillance policies are based on such faulty logic ... and now they are the victim of it as well. Ah, but I digress... short answer: Your router doesn't need a tin foil hat.

      The "NSA effect" introduces doubt. There is someone watching my traffic, and they would probably meddle with it if they could get away with it and had the resources. What if all 'suspicious' encrypted streams were slowed at various choke-points on the internet in the name of national security -- i.e. "if we can't see what you're sending then your traffic will be penalised"? Wouldn't they love to do that? What kind of internet would that be? I don't think that is entirely paranoia.

    52. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix and Google use 75% of the bandwidth in my country.

    53. Re:NSA by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, NOW I don't have mod points. Honorary +1, Mr. AC.

    54. Re:NSA by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      What possible reason does such a company have for an Ethernet MAC that receives only?

      The answer is available on every *nix box. Just open /dev/null and see for yourself.

    55. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but there were a few times when my ping was measurably with a human timer.

      More likely, this is some sort of broken link somewhere along the way that's resulting in the traffic being slowed.

      Are you saying those ping times were measurable in terms of human lifespan? Wow! That is slow.

    56. Re:NSA by swillden · · Score: 1

      I don't think that latency was due to filtering being slow, I think adding latency was the goal. If the Chinese firewall simply blocks large swaths of the Internet, there's the potential of citizen backlash. If, instead, they can just degrade the sites they don't want people looking at, they can gently nudge people towards using other sites that provide the same general services but which are willing to cooperate with the Chinese authorities with respect to what content they provide.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    57. Re:NSA by wkk2 · · Score: 1

      It can be used for data logging and collecting stats. An old off-the-shelf method was to use an Ethernet to 15-pin AUI module and break off the transmit pin. Today it's easier to use port mirroring if you trust the hardware.

    58. Re: NSA by aab7046060 · · Score: 1

      a good test for decryption throttling might be to compare vpn vs non-vpn connections

    59. Re: NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize it makes certain kinds of personalities comfortable to assume that government and its employees are always incompetent all of the time. It reinforces a certain world view that allows easy dismissal of otherwise inconvenient facts and if there's one thing Americans can't seem to stand, it's facts that contradict their opinions, religion, or economic beliefs.

      The problem is that one person's "incompetent" is another's following of rules and procedures, usually put in place by people with a political agenda of some sort, even if that agenda is simply "keep my name off the news". You see this in corporations all the time, where sales is easy to reach and customer service takes forever. The customer service people may or may not be competent, but their organization works as designed--it's just not designed to do what you think it is.

      In the case of the NSA, you have an organization run from the top with a disrespect for rules, laws, and any sort of boundaries, and the results show it. People who work there may individually be competent, not, or somewhere in between, but just because they have a technical screwup or two doesn't make the agency incompetent,

    60. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't think it's technically possible for the NSA to intercept all VPNs from South America, and only VPNs from South America, in such a way that all VPNs from South America get throttled."

      This is very, very, very possible and in fact likely on some level.

    61. Re:NSA by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anything from a higher classified system that is to deliver data to a lower classified system,

      The projects I worked on called it a data diode.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    62. Re:NSA by kgskgs · · Score: 1

      Totally agree with the NSA effect and the examples you gave. Let me add one more example similar effect of how a false media report can skew perception. The Prius recall due to accelerator getting stuck. I drove Prius for years before the recall news. But never felt any issue. After reading about it, I felt a couple of times my Prius was accelerating. Since I forgot about it, never been an issue.

    63. Re:NSA by SirusTV · · Score: 1

      Kim dot com said he first suspected that he was being monitored when his pings went to shit in call of duty or battlefield i forget. anyways he talks about how he then did a traceroute to corroborate it.

    64. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have to agree with this....

      After all they've gotten away with IGNORING that untidy document that the CONSITUTION is for gods alone know how many decades... ...and I used to joke that the constitution was printed on every single roll of toilet paper in Washington, now, however, I suspect that it's truer than I ever could have imagined...

    65. Re: NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FBI may hold the domestic surveillance brief, but the NSA has admitted that they still do domestic surveillance.

    66. Re:NSA by hedwards · · Score: 2

      That's an easy assumption, but it's not correct. The sites that are blocked will just timed out because the DNS won't connect you, but most of the sites that I observed to be effected would load from time to time, they just took forever to load. And once they did load, there was nothing about China and nothing that they're usually blocking. Sites like the NYT do get blocked, but sites that just carry Chinese lessons and other innocuous content don't normally get blocked.

      The main reason for the latency is that China controls access to DNS servers and you're only supposed to use those DNS servers. So, they tend to be over crowded and sites can appear to be blocked, that are just located a long distance away.

    67. Re: NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do we not think routing traffic through a less efficient path won't add latency?

      Also, who says the NSA is only interested in logging? Do we think it wouldn't be desirable to have prevented sensitive documents from being sent at all?

    68. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even if "capture raw data" suffices - if the bandwidth to their traffic caputring room [wikipedia.org] is at capacity, they very well may tell the upstream switches to slow down so they can "capture [all] raw data".

      Uh, no they don't do that. You don't tell a switch to "slow down", that's not how the technology works. If an interface is maxed out it just drops the packets on the floor, re-transmits and "back-off" requests are a much higher layer in the OSI model. Besides, if you want to capture traffic you just mirror a port, so you're not going to overflow your mirrored port as long as it's running at the same speed as the other... which is usually required in order to setup mirroring in the first place.

    69. Re:NSA by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      Traffic was slow on the drive home yesterday.

      Damn NSA!!

    70. Re:NSA by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      They [the NSA] do not need to do real-time processing of the data: that is only necessary for filtering. It suffices for them to simply capture raw data for later analysis or decryption as necessary. Of course capturing data does not result in any slowdown or other noticeable effects.

      The above holds true for any competent surveillance agency.

      However the NSA has demonstrated that it is totally, completely, and dangerously incompetent: Snowden. We are now getting a little bit of information about what the NSA is supposed to be doing. But that is meaningless since an unknown portion of what it is really doing is hidden even from its own top level bureaucrats who are supposedly monitoring its activities. How much of the NSA apparatus is being used to how great an extent by BOFHs who are pursuing their personal LOVEINTs or collecting data on "Good and Plenty" references in emails to sell to one of Hershey's competitors.

      An agency that is as incompetent in its security as Snowden has shown the NSA to be is fully capable of other screw-ups, such as holding transmissions in queues until it has enough resources freed from the illicit activities of its minions that it can do the work it was intended to do.

      We cannot trust anything that is being said about the NSA, because whether it is Obama, Holder, or somebody lower on the Washington food chain, it is definitely someone with neither the time nor the skills to assess how much the low level BOFHs have perverted things.

      --
      Will
    71. Re:NSA by TCM · · Score: 1

      I don't think an unencrypted virtual network satisfies the P in VPN.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    72. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sucks to be your client.

    73. Re:NSA by caballew · · Score: 1

      Netflix and Google use 75% of the bandwidth in my country.

      And what country would that be and do you have an authoritative source for that claim?

    74. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You absolutely need to trap the packets in real time in order to actually break the VPN connection open so you can get at the actual payload (cleartext,
      > post-decrypted) data within the stream. The initial cryptographic handshake has to be captured, in order for them to peel it open and get inside.

      > You can't do that days later, when all you have is an encrypted stream of bits.

      Only if you want to get the info in real time. If you capture ALL the traffic, in order, there is no reason why the encrypted stream of bits could not be broken later on.

    75. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you, guys at NSA are not that good.

      Yes we are. We now know who you are and what you are doing. You know, the thing you think nobody is aware of.

      This slanderous comment just got you added to our watch list. Just wait until you try to fly; cavity search.

    76. Re:NSA by Paleolibertarian · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a local caching DNS server solve that problem? Once a lookup is in the local cache there wouldn't be any DNS latency. Only new lookups would be delayed.

    77. Re:NSA by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      In order to monitor effectively, they need to make sure the is no alternative route, or technology, for the data which they cannot also effectively monitor. This was precisely why they tapped the fiber at the AT&T facilyt in "Room 641" in San Francisco. It's also why telecom companies are forbidden, by law, from using technologies that do not have law enforcement monitoring capacity built in.

      So, in your diagram, that "router B" needs to be a core router which cannot evaded by alternative routing or load balancing, such as a security aware customer electing to use a slower, but more secure, router by manipulating their BGP tables. Such hand modification of BGP tables is quite commonplace, for economic and social reasons.

    78. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first hint that Kim Dotcom had that the government was spying on his traffic is when his latency went up.

    79. Re:NSA by mpe · · Score: 1

      To be fair, a MitM attack on a VPN probably would introduce a delay.

      How would you preform a sucessful MitM attack on an OpenVPN connection though?
      It's not like HTTPS where browsers will accept anything signed by a large number of certificate authorities. (Even if different from what was seen the previous time.)

    80. Re: NSA by mpe · · Score: 1

      I realize it makes certain kinds of personalities comfortable to assume that government and its employees are always incompetent all of the time.

      There also people who believe that government and government employees are always competent all of the time...

      The problem is that one person's "incompetent" is another's following of rules and procedures, usually put in place by people with a political agenda of some sort, even if that agenda is simply "keep my name off the news". You see this in corporations all the time, where sales is easy to reach and customer service takes forever. The customer service people may or may not be competent, but their organization works as designed--it's just not designed to do what you think it is.

      In any organisation beyond a certain size you also get all sorts of internal politics. Which may be incomprehensible to people outside. Also the actual "rules" may be impossible to actually follow because parts are mutually exclusive.

    81. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your UID is too low for you to fail to understand the mod system. When I have mod points, I mod comments like yours into oblivion. Let me rephrase the content of your post: "Durp! I like wut u says!"
      Thanks for contributing.

    82. Re:NSA by cnettel · · Score: 1

      I suppose in very specific cases it could be worth it to intentionally make an encrypted channel unusable, in order to try to lure a target into using an unencrypted channel. But, as you say, doing so (and manifesting that you have that ability) comes at a rather great cost in terms of non-covertness.

    83. Re:NSA by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons the OP suspected the NSA is that NYC appears in server addresses on his trace-route.

      Regardless, I can't think of a place where the NSA would have servers and sending data there to be scanned would add a significant amount of lag to his connection.

    84. Re:NSA by jamesh · · Score: 1

      I don't think an unencrypted virtual network satisfies the P in VPN.

      The P refers to the differentiation between the public internet and your internal network. Encryption is normally implied for security reasons, but if you can justify encryption on your VPN then I would highly recommend running IPSEC between all endpoints to avoid a malicious device on your internal network sniffing packets.

    85. Re:NSA by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      i think they would prefer to identify 'suspicious' streams, monitor them for a while, then throw the person/terrorist in a hole for decades. that's how they roll.

    86. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I wouldn't be surprised to learn that ISPs were being ordered to throttle specifically those torrents, I'd hesitate in your case.

      Your 3 full-speed examples are all, sadly, substantially less popular - the network topography for transfer of them is going to be vastly different to the topography for the Snowden cache, and that alone could introduce other sources of slowdown (even though torrents are explicitly designed for many-to-many, they still suffer when the number of participants is sufficiently high while individual bandwidth remains low).

    87. Re:NSA by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What he said is "Could the NSA be slowing all VPNs to/from South America because of Snowden and Greenwald?"

      The NSA did slow-down all traffic to a non-US location because of a copyright investigation. So claiming his claim must be false because it's so outlandish is provably false.

      That's all I'm saying.

      I can't think of a scenario where the NSA convinces every ISP in the US to send all packets from a specific region through their servers. If they did the first clue wouldn't be one guy's VPN, it would be everyone's VPN.

      The original question is "could the NSA be messing with Peru to UK VPNs?" Well, his route to the UK passes through the USA, so it's quite possible. It doesn't take "all ISPs", just one. The NSA is friendly enough with AT&T, and AT&T is a major international carrier, it isn't impossible, and given history of NSA and AT&T actions, seems plausible.

    88. Re:NSA by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Two points:

      First you're mistaken if you think there's been any proven NSA involvement in the MegaUpload case. It's been proven that the US Government used something very similar to what the NSA uses, but that doesn't prove the NSA did it. Arguing otherwise is exactly like arguing that [insert attack from US warplanes] must have been carried out by the US Marines because you just read the wiki page on the Hawker Harrier. Don't act like you would be surprised if a) the FBI built it's own copy of PRISM at great expense, or b) the FBI and NSA actually share PRISM. To conflate the entire US IT Surveillance state with a small part of that state is just sloppy thinking.

      Second, nobody has claimed his story is impossible; just that it's highly unlikely given that a) VPN slowdowns are something ISPs love to do, b) there're a lot of connections between Peru and the UK that could cause such a slowdown, c) nobody else seems to be claiming a VPN slowdown, and d) why would the NSA tip off Wikileaks that they're analyzing South American data real close?

    89. Re:NSA by jwilso91 · · Score: 1

      You can use GRE or IPIP tunnels to make a VPN which will be completely unencrypted. I normally use IPSEC over the top of that where encryption is required.

      It should be noted that VPNs using IPSEC are especially sensitive to high latencies. If you don't like that foreign companies in your nation are using VPNs (and thus potentially side-stepping any filtering or surveillance measures) you can throw in the occasional delay and make their tunnel unusable. I have seen this in China.

    90. Re:NSA by jwilso91 · · Score: 1

      The fact is, without a lot more information from the OP, this question simply can't be answered. It could be one of dozens of different things... all we can do is give odds on the likelihood of what it might be... and I'd put the NSA pretty far down the list. The 'NSA Effect' is the same thing happening now in the media that caused people to beat the crap out of random muslims out of 9/11, or jerkwads in Florida to shoot black kids...

      Or, for that matter, black thugs shouting "This is for Trayvon" beating and robbing random white people.

    91. Re: NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the FBI is doing US domestic surveillance. The NSA is doing non-domestic surveillance. And I don't think Peru is part of the US.

      You must have missed the part where the NSA assumes all internet traffic is non-domestic.

    92. Re:NSA by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If one were to substitute "US government agency" for NSA, would you have any issues with the statements?

    93. Re:NSA by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      That would deal with a lot of my objections.

      I'd still disagree about the odds the unnamed US Government Agency was actually at fault. It's certainly possible he's pissed off the CIA or somebody similar, and I don't doubt that if he had done so serious skullduggery could be happening.

      But the odds are much better his ISP is a) incompetent, and hasn't negotiated the bandwidth it needs, or b) intentionally screwing him because they have a ridiculous and secret anti-VPN policy.

    94. Re:NSA by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'd still disagree about the odds the unnamed US Government Agency was actually at fault.

      The US government was "proven" at fault for Kim Dotcom, where he discovered the tap because of the increase in latency (silly gamers). So your certainty that the US government wouldn't do it because it'd be silly is provably false.

    95. Re:NSA by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      and if the government was able to do it by only affecting latency by ms so it took a gamer to notice, why would they then do it by slowing his connection by a factor of 20?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    96. Re:NSA by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why is it that the conservative conspiracy theorists assume the government is the most competent organization on the planet when it comes to planning and executing cover-ups, but the least efficient organization on the planet when it comes to governing? One would assume they are of similar competency in both.

    97. Re:NSA by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      I'm'm not sure what a conservative is. I'm not too familiar with the USian political spectrum which they perceive as encompassing the whole continuum of left right but which is all extreme right in the global context.

      I actually 5hink the powers that run the US are extremely competent, even if they are batshit crazy. They just use the perception of their bumbling idiocy as a smoke screen to cover up their true purpose. For example, what's the general perception, that the US attacked Iraq because of stupidity or that they did it because the plans were already drawn up before 9/11?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  3. Passive monitoring is all that is necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You are seriously lacking basic data telecommunications experience. All government tapping is span port based. This means that it is passive, not active, so there is no latency involved.

    1. Re:Passive monitoring is all that is necessary by xate · · Score: 1

      span port or port mirroring? i don't knows muchs abouts switchers buts i thinks spannin is something else

    2. Re:Passive monitoring is all that is necessary by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative
    3. Re:Passive monitoring is all that is necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One can mirror/span ports. There are also direct wire-level (layer 1) taps that one can plug between devices that mirror the signal exactly on the raw electrical pulse tier. There is zero latency with this device, although they tend to be fairly specialized.

      Hook it up, clap a machine with tcpdump and a large storage array that can handle the sustained I/O, and slurp away. I'm sure it is much more sophisticated than this, likely with DPI filters and such.

      Seriously, the NSA is not going to actively interfere with someone's traffic. They tend to be observers, not enforcers. Now, ISPs, on the other hand, have a real reason to throttle encrypted traffic (they can't sell encrypted tunnel traffic to ad agencies.)

    4. Re:Passive monitoring is all that is necessary by skids · · Score: 1

      It's hypothetically possible that ISPs might be influenced to route traffic to physically pass through a NOC where taps are in place, the extra hops causing latency.

      Though I do think OP is jumping the gun just a bit.

    5. Re:Passive monitoring is all that is necessary by Nutria · · Score: 1

      I do think OP is jumping the gun just a bit.

      +1, Understatement.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re:Passive monitoring is all that is necessary by dougmc · · Score: 1

      It's hypothetically possible that ISPs might be influenced to route traffic to physically pass through a NOC where taps are in place, the extra hops causing latency.

      In that same vein, it may be that the NSA is equipped to record/decrypt certain types of data, but not others.

      For example, suppose they could decrypt normal traffic just fine, but not VPN traffic. So to discourage VPN use, they make it unpractical for normal use by slowing it to 5% of the speed it should work at. They could break it entirely, but they want to remain covert, so they just slow it to a crawl.

      The user knows that its still working -- so he doesn't set to "fix" it (either by using different ports, algorithms, providers, etc.) but instead tries to deal with it, then gives up, sending important data over unsecured lines that the covert government agency can easily capture/decrypt.

      Now, all of this seems extremely unlikely -- but it's another hypothetical possibility.

      Personally, I suspect his issues are much more mundane (overloaded lines, QoS slowing his VPN packets, etc.) and much less nefarious. But tracking such things down can be difficult.

    7. Re:Passive monitoring is all that is necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, taps are used, not port mirroring (span is a cisco term).

    8. Re:Passive monitoring is all that is necessary by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I personally used a Solera CALEA box. Slap it on the mirrored port, and set the filter for what you want to capture. Stream it live to the FBI or save in a file for burn to disk or FTP later. Dead simple. And that's commercially available gear anyone can buy. I can't believe the spooks don't have something 10x better, costing only 1000x as much.

      But I do have to keep pointing out that the US snooping outside the country (Kim Dotcom) managed to slow down the connection and leave recognizable fingerprints via traceroutes and such. So assumption of competence isn't necessarily justified.

  4. Could be a peering/ISP contract dispute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When innocent people are getting the shaft, greed is frequently the culprit.

  5. Traffic Intercept and VPN by AaronW · · Score: 5, Informative

    Years ago I worked on a broadband remote access server and one requirement we got was to support lawful traffic interception. Basically all law enforcement wanted was a copy of all of the packets. Packets are not slowed down or stopped by this process.

    In my case the hardware was just not capable of doing what was needed but there was plenty of off the shelf hardware that could be installed in the network to provide the filtering and packet mirroring needed.

    It is possible that one of the VPN's upstream providers is running into congestion. One of the best ways I have found is to use traceroute. At one time I was getting unusable Internet connectivity through AT&T after they acquired my local cable modem network from @Home. It took them many months to discover that throttling all aggregate upstream traffic to 128Kbps is a bad idea. As much as people bitch and moan about Comcast, it is lightyears better than anything I got through AT&T. In this case, traceroute clearly showed where packets were getting delayed and dropped, which was one of the routers inside AT&T.

    Unfortunately, for a VPN this is much more difficult since the Internet hops are hidden via the tunnel.

    There are many different ways to tunnel traffic. If the tunnel is Microsoft's PPTP protocol then it's not very secure. If on the other hand it is using IPSec then it should be a lot more secure. There are also other tunneling protocols that do not specify any encryption, i.e. MPLS.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    1. Re:Traffic Intercept and VPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, for a VPN this is much more difficult since the Internet hops are hidden via the tunnel.

      OpenVPN is SSL, he can just traceroute the ip of the vpn server.
      That only shows problems due to congestion and such, not intentional stuff.
      Traceroute is very limited in what it can show.

      -HasH @ TrYPNET.net

    2. Re:Traffic Intercept and VPN by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At one time I was getting unusable Internet connectivity through AT&T after they acquired my local cable modem network from @Home. It took them many months to discover that throttling all aggregate upstream traffic to 128Kbps is a bad idea. As much as people bitch and moan about Comcast, it is lightyears better than anything I got through AT&T.

      When AT&T was providing cable Internet to me, there was a time when my IPSEC VPN did not work. The VPN apparently connected, but data traffic never made it though. Other people complained, but AT&T claimed they were doing nothing to VPNs. Using tcpdump at both ends, I could see that the media (udp/500) was not getting though while the AH and ESP packets (required to set up the connection) were getting though. Clearly AT&T was blocking VPNs, but in such a way that it would not be obvious to the average user what was wrong. Pure evil.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Traffic Intercept and VPN by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, for a VPN this is much more difficult since the Internet hops are hidden via the tunnel.

      No they aren't, you just trace route to the VPN host.

      If the tunnel is PPTP, thats probably why it sucks, PPTP is horrible without perfect low latency connections. ... When did MPLS become a tunneling protocol instead of a switching protocol? You can't exactly use it outside of your own network. I guess you could technically piggy back it on top of some other protocol, but thats like running iSCSI over SCSI, which you connect to over iSCSI.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:Traffic Intercept and VPN by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      In the end what OP wants to be answered, is the question whether his provider throttles traffic. The odds are, provider does this.

      To test, you don't need traceroute necessarily.

      Are all connections to the VPS slow? Only VPN or also http, smtp, ssh, etc? Then there certainly is an issue on that specific connection.

      Try to find another server within the same data centre to connect to (same route for the packets to get there), see what happens.

      Find a server in a different location, same protocols, and see what happens.

      Have someone test your server from a different location (or do this yourself using a proxy somewhere), see what happens.

      If you can connect fast to other servers, and other people can connect fast to your server, then the problem is almost certainly intentional throttling of your IP by your provider. To confirm, try to move your server to another IP address (I'm aware this is easier said than done) - the connection should be better.

      Except for the very last step, OP did this all already according to description. Conclusion should be quite clear, and a call to ISP complaining about this issue would be appropriate.

    5. Re:Traffic Intercept and VPN by skids · · Score: 2

      Paratrace (or whatever its descendents might be called these days) might yield a bit more accurate information. Both rely on interim hops playing by ICMP rules. Many of the highly utilized hops have at least throttled ICMP responses to conserve CPU, so you need to be careful to not just firehose test packets.

      OP might probably calm down and remember not to attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. A simple change in fragmentation, buffering depth, or the ever misguided per-flow fairness AQM that pops up from time to time could have drastic effects on an SSL tunnel.

    6. Re:Traffic Intercept and VPN by Aguazul2 · · Score: 2

      Except for the very last step, OP did this all already according to description. Conclusion should be quite clear, and a call to ISP complaining about this issue would be appropriate.

      Calling Telefonica is not a solution to anything, unfortunately. They can't even get billing right. They obviously do have some technical people somewhere, and mostly they do a pretty good job, because uptime is good and we haven't seen many problems otherwise. The customer-facing people though ... what can I say ... Until you learn how to make an official complaint and involve the regulator, you can't even get basic billing and contract problems solved. The chance of making progress with some obscure technical complaint is nil. They are also a monopoly in many parts of Peru.

    7. Re: Traffic Intercept and VPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is backwards. udp/500 is used for handshaking, esp for payload and ah for packet authentication. If they were blocking udp/500, you'd never get out of stage1 and you couldn't generate valid esp packets to measure if they were being blocked. You could generate invalid esp packets, but for some reason, I suspect that is not what happened.

    8. Re:Traffic Intercept and VPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At one time I was getting unusable Internet connectivity through AT&T after they acquired my local cable modem network from @Home. It took them many months to discover that throttling all aggregate upstream traffic to 128Kbps is a bad idea. As much as people bitch and moan about Comcast, it is lightyears better than anything I got through AT&T.

      When AT&T was providing cable Internet to me, there was a time when my IPSEC VPN did not work. The VPN apparently connected, but data traffic never made it though. Other people complained, but AT&T claimed they were doing nothing to VPNs. Using tcpdump at both ends, I could see that the media (udp/500) was not getting though while the AH and ESP packets (required to set up the connection) were getting though. Clearly AT&T was blocking VPNs, but in such a way that it would not be obvious to the average user what was wrong. Pure evil.

      Nah, it's less about evil and more about incompetent. Where I work, we buy a lot of circuits from people like AT&T, everything from simple copper T1's on up the chain to large OC circuits, managed ethernet, etc. From time to time we run into issues where AT&T fucks something up and starts eating some (or all) of the traffic going across a link. Then my job is to call them up and argue with 12 layers of escalation until they admit there's a problem and fix it.

    9. Re:Traffic Intercept and VPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odds are it was one of your gateway routers or your VPN configuration, if NAT (the common home router variety) is involved anywhere in the connection. IPsec works best when neither endpoint is behind NAT. IPsec VPN routers need special configuration when behind NAT, and NAT-enabled routers in front of the VPN routers have to handle non-TCP/UDP traffic a certain way in order for ESP (ip/50) to travel in both directions.

    10. Re:Traffic Intercept and VPN by mpe · · Score: 1

      When AT&T was providing cable Internet to me, there was a time when my IPSEC VPN did not work. The VPN apparently connected, but data traffic never made it though. Other people complained, but AT&T claimed they were doing nothing to VPNs. Using tcpdump at both ends, I could see that the media (udp/500) was not getting though while the AH and ESP packets (required to set up the connection) were getting though. Clearly AT&T was blocking VPNs, but in such a way that it would not be obvious to the average user what was wrong. Pure evil.

      Or they blocked everything unless they knew it was needed. Possibly only at one (or a few points) in their network.
      e.g. they only let IP protocols 1, 6 & 17 through because someone didn't realise the other 253 were perfectly valid. Even though many which are assigned are, in practice, hardly ever used.

    11. Re:Traffic Intercept and VPN by puto · · Score: 2
      Have I got a story for you.

      When I was living in Colombia telefonica bought up much of the government run landline/internet business.

      I had telephone and DSL through them .768 down, 128 up for like 70 US a month. Then the government mandated that min speed for anyone was 2 meg, so we got a bump. But they throttled youtube and my vpn traffic.

      I did not mind to much because my office had a ten megabit fiber connection, so any thing that needed a heavy payload I just did at work. Though it did suck for streaming video.

      In 2000 I wired the family home for internet and while doing this I discovered that the phone line was only a single pair so I replaced it with 2 pair and dropped ethernet jacks to the bedrooms, the kitchen, dining room, and the living room.

      Fast forward to 2010 my internet and my home phone go to to shit, does not work for 2 weeks. They broke appointment after appointment.

      Finally a guy from Telefonica came over but I was not home, so I called the guard at my building and said to let him in, I was on my way.

      I get to the house and the guy has cut my standard phone cable and run lamp wire, about as think as a monster cable, to the jack where the dsl router was plugged in, and insult to injury has run the lamp wire around the entire room stapled to the walls. Also had pulled my baseboard off the wall.

      He had no equipment such as testers or even a lap top. And still nothing worked. At this point I took his bag of tools and tossed them both into the street. My wife was cracking up because she said I fit about 20 insults in 2 minutes of yelling.

      I call again, get someone reasonably intelligent, and they say "oh yeah, lightning hit the switch we will have someone right away". So I reconnect my wiring but leave his in place so they can see what a fuck up it was.

      They fix the switch, everything comes up working again. They send a supervisor over to see the damage and he is like "so what". And then he sees my two little netgear routers and says "now we have to charge you for a business connection because you have a router." I am beyond pissed. I explain to him that I have two internal networks, one for the rest of the family that is straight internet, and the other was connected to my vpn.

      Two days later vpn is not working. Router seems fine, I can connect to my vpn at work, but not at home. I switched equipment same thing. The dsl modem was also a 4 port switch, and all of a sudden only one port was working. I call em up and they tell that they have disabled the other ports and if I want them to re-enable it I have to pay for a business line.
      I call Telmex order their triple bundle they came to the house installed in three hours, and left me with a ten meg connection.

      2 days later the Telefonica manager shows up at my house asking why I was disconnecting service and I told him. I also said that I was not going to pay the contract fees nor the phone bill, because it had not worked for two weeks and showed him the damage. He got all snippy and said I would be turned over to a collection agency and if I wanted any restitution I would have to see them in court, and he said "los abogados aca cobran mucho). He did not realize that although I was born and raised in the states, and my spanish had a gringo accent, that I was actually Colombian, so he tried to get over on me. I said to him that I did not have a problem paying an attorney and I yelled out "Papa ven un momentico, hay alguien en la puerta quien quiere hablar con mi abogado." Yo dad, there is someone at the door who wants to speak to my attorney. Unfortunately for this guy my lawyer is also my father.

      I am the calmest guy in the world but they pissed me off.

      But this is typical of latin america, and if you grew up in the states it is hard to get used to the lack of rhyme and reason there.

      --
      The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
    12. Re:Traffic Intercept and VPN by sabri · · Score: 1

      When did MPLS become a tunneling protocol instead of a switching protocol? You can't exactly use it outside of your own network.

      MPLS stands for multi-protocol label switching. That is a technique to forward packets, not to specify a protocol. MPLS is in fact more a tunneling protocol than a switching protocol. All traditional forms of tunneling will add additional headers around the original frame. MPLS does something similar: a 32 bit header is inserted between the layer 2 and layer 3 headers. Many implementations allow a network operator to specify which LSP a specific route must follow (static routing into an LSP is perfectly fine). This would justify the classification of MPLS as a tunneling protocol.

      Additionally, many MPLS implementations allow the operator to alter the default behavior of TTL propagation, effectively hiding the use of MPLS to the end-user. It is quite trivial to statically reroute certain traffic into an MPLS L3VPN towards a monitor server which conducts a man-in-the-middle attack, and subsequently reroute the traffic back to its original location. I have designed such a network as part of a centralized transparent internet caching solution. In that case, I used policy based forwarding to reroute packets destined for or originating from port 80 into my LSP towards a transparent cache.

      You won't be able to know that you have been rerouted, and if the L3VPN is very remote, your latency will increase significantly.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    13. Re:Traffic Intercept and VPN by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      [...] I am the calmest guy in the world but they pissed me off.
      But this is typical of latin america, and if you grew up in the states it is hard to get used to the lack of rhyme and reason there.

      Yeah, this sounds just like the Telefonica we know and love here in Peru. What gets me is that they will happily lie to people who don't know. I always make sure I have a leaflet from the regulator in one hand and a folder of documents in the other when I go there, so we start off on the right basis. They happily screw over 90% of the population because they don't know any better. I don't know how it is in Colombia, but there is a culture of accepting loss here rather than informing and defending yourself. Telefonica ripping you off is part of life. I wonder how this started? With the conquistadores? There is one businessman I talked to here who says he will never employ anyone who worked for Telefonica, because it is like an institutional illness they never recover from. Yes, it take a while to get used to all this.

  6. I find... by djupedal · · Score: 1

    - that the (NSA?) taps are one-way feeds, not redirects/bounces. We just put up two local time-lapse job site camera feeds, and the already routes show one-way feeds from San Francisco, straight to Virginia. The feeds originate in the North West...

  7. The Internet is a (messy) series of tubes by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

    My office Internet connection recently went from about 30Mbps down to 1.5Mbps, then back to 50Mbps a month later. No explanation, and speed tests to our ISP all came through at full speeds. We only saw problems on routes going outside our city and headed west. There were also a few inaccessible sites, but those were in very specific local areas. Ultimately, the best guess anyone could come up with is that a network to the west of our city had some routing problems.

    We weren't the only customers to complain about a slowdown, but our ISP couldn't really do much about it. The Internet is made up of many networks working together, and sometimes shit happens. I wouldn't jump so quickly to assume it's non-neutral throttling or the NSA, when it could just be a careless guy with a badly-aimed backhoe. Give it some time, see if it improves, and if not, it may be time to move your VPS.

    As an aside, you're likely going through New York because that's how you're reaching Europe to get to your UK-based VPS. Many transatlantic cables end in New York City, mostly because the stock market pays dearly for the few nanoseconds of lower latency.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:The Internet is a (messy) series of tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the issue is specific local hubs and routers, it seems to me real time monitoring and distributed info about the problem areas would assist both local and remoter admins to diagnose and resolve the issues. This would assist the internet generally, not just particular users or regions.

      JJ

    2. Re:The Internet is a (messy) series of tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nanosecond is 1/1000th of a millisecond... soooo... you're off by an order of magnitude.

      Well, at least now we know who neither knows SI prefixes nor what "order of magnitude" means.

    3. Re:The Internet is a (messy) series of tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so wrong, copper, both twinax and twisted pair has way more latency than fiber.

    4. Re:The Internet is a (messy) series of tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A microsecond is 1/1000th of a millisecond.
      A nanosecond is 1/1000th of a microsecond... soooo... you're off by an order of magnitude. Anyway... nitpicking, but hey.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=5576.74+km+in+lightseconds
      According to google, london to new york is 0.018602 light seconds.
      That is 18.6 ms. That is 18,602 usec. That is 55,806,006 cycles on a 3 Ghz machine.
      Our engineers occasionally joke about building a neutron beam emitter/detector so they can go straight through the earth.
      I'm curious about the kind of resistance a copper wire would have at those lengths, how far apart signal amplifiers/repeaters would have to be, and what sort of latency they would cause, and what sort of power source they would have in the middle of the Atlantic ocean. Cool idea tho!

    5. Re:The Internet is a (messy) series of tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And remember that fiber optic runs at 2/3rds the speed of light;

      Wrong.

      the light bounces as it travels the plastic tube;

      Transatlantic cables are *single mode* *glass* fiber. No bouncing. No plastic.

      sin(45) = .707 = about 2/3rds.

      In what fucked-up case would you have 45deg incidence?

      If latency was such a huge deal, they'd be using copper links, as electricity does move at almost the speed of light

      Electricity moves at the speed of light, so does light. Hint: EM wave == EM wave. Speed of light != Speed of light in vacuum.

      A nanosecond is 1/1000th of a millisecond

      Last I checked it was a millionth...

      ... soooo... you're off by an order of magnitude.

      3 orders by your fucked definition of milli vs. nano. 6 otherwise.

      Anyway... nitpicking, but hey.

      When nitpicking, try to not make yourself look like a complete fucking idiot, but hey.

    6. Re:The Internet is a (messy) series of tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a nanosecond is 1/1000000th of a millisecond... soooo... you're off quite a bit too ;-)

      ms = millisecond = 0.001 s
      us = microsecond = 0.000 001 s
      ns = nanosecond = 0.000 000 001 s

    7. Re:The Internet is a (messy) series of tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nanosecond is 1/1000th of a millisecond... soooo... you're off by an order of magnitude

      You are confusing milliseconds (1/1,000th of a second) with microseconds (1/1,000,000th of a second). A nanosecond is 1/1,000th of the latter. Otherwise, spot on, indeed.

    8. Re:The Internet is a (messy) series of tubes by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      That is 18.6 ms. That is 18,602 usec. That is 55,806,006 cycles on a 3 Ghz machine.

      18.6 versus 26.3 ms. Not nanoseconds.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    9. Re:The Internet is a (messy) series of tubes by girlintraining · · Score: 1, Informative

      And remember that fiber optic runs at 2/3rds the speed of light;

      Wrong.

      Right. Light doesn't travel in a straight line through fiber optic. Sorry man, you and the mods are wrong on this. Physics FTW.

      In what fucked-up case would you have 45deg incidence?

      I suppose in the "fucked up case" where light bounces repeatedly along a very long tube at varying angles, and the sum average would, after a few dozen reflections, quickly start averaging out to... wait for it... 45 degrees. Sorry if you were asleep in science class.

      When nitpicking, try to not make yourself look like a complete fucking idiot, but hey.

      I got my prefix wrong. You got the whole theory wrong.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    10. Re:The Internet is a (messy) series of tubes by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Posted way past my bedtime. That's my excuse.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    11. Re:The Internet is a (messy) series of tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      milli- = 1/1,000
      micro- = 1/1,000,000
      nano- = 1/1,000,000,000

    12. Re:The Internet is a (messy) series of tubes by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Posted way past my bedtime. That's my excuse.

      I'm American. We don't use SI. That's mine. :)

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  8. Don't believe your provider... by djupedal · · Score: 1

    You're being throttled.

  9. is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by alen · · Score: 1, Interesting

    why would they care about your pirated or whatever TV?

    a super secret US intelligence agency that employs some of the smartest mathmatecians in the world is going to care about people's pirated movies instead of tracking down our enemies so the military can kill them

    1. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know, for a "super secret" agency, an awful lot of people know about them...

    2. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by BLKMGK · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did you not watch the video from the Dot Com mansion raid? lol

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    3. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A super secret agency that employs some of the best GED having non-college going doofuses around?

    4. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by ehack · · Score: 1

      They have to track every byte of every peer to peer transaction, in case someone is using modified clients to communicate. $
      Also, they are ordered to retain every single phone sex conversation between non US persons, in case blackmail material is required some decades later for commercial or diplomatic purposes.

      --
      This is not a signature.
    5. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      They care about what you send over that connection. They do want to know. As long as you're watching the BBC, they won't care much.

      But as soon as you switch to jihad-TV, they will care, and to know whether you do so, they'll have to keep on monitoring your BBC broadcast stream, to make sure you're not secretly switching networks. Or as soon as you switch to some encryption method resulting in them only seeing random bits, they also start to care about your connection.

      And with the suspect j-word twice in this comment it'll likely be flagged and added to my dossier.

    6. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't some of the smartest computer engineers in the world employed to simply to figure out the best way to deliver targeted advertising to you that you can't skip or ignore?

    7. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by WhatAreYouDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Evidence. You never know when you might need to bankrupt/incarcerate/whatever someone, anyone ... everyone!

      --
      "What are you doing here, Elijah?"
    8. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      why would they care about your pirated or whatever TV? a super secret US intelligence agency that employs some of the smartest mathmatecians in the world is going to care about people's pirated movies instead of tracking down our enemies so the military can kill them

      I assume you mean't "*isn't* going to care". And you have some starry eyes, my friend... you seem to think that the NSA must be like a James Bond movie. But once corruption becomes the operating mindset (and it has), it all ends up being about the same thing: the non-equal concentration of wealth and power. And the movie industry is very wealthy and powerful.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    9. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh but they do care. Our security services didn't give a fuck when the Russians handed them the Tsarnaev brothers on a platter. They couldn't be bothered to watch them.

      The NSA/CIA/FBI/CBP don't give a shit about security. Its all about maintaining the integrity of our economic Iron Curtain for the protection of local businesses. Particularly the MPAA. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Five Eyes were driven by similar motives. GCHQ is more concerned with losing their TV tax than stopping the next tube bombing. That's where I'd look for the choke point in the OP's connection.

    10. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. Senator gets big bucks from entertainment industry and sits on the right committees, it could happen. Craven is as craven does.

    11. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      They care about what you send over that connection. They do want to know. As long as you're watching the BBC, they won't care much.

      Well my VPN is encrypted so they don't know what I'm transferring, although I don't use it for anything sensitive. I guess if I turned off all the encryption and it was still throttled then that would eliminate the NSA as the culprits.

    12. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      It won't eliminate the NSA. It only suggests that there is no man in the middle doing decryption/encryption. NSA won't work as MiM; that'd be too easy to detect; and that's also not necessary for listening to a signal (regardless of whether they can decrypt it).

    13. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your assumption is actually wrong. And the rest of your post wasn't very good either. What a strange tangent you went on about :(

    14. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a super secret US intelligence agency that employs some of the smartest mathmatecians in the world is going to care about people's pirated movies instead of tracking down our enemies so the military can kill them/quote.

      Did you fall asleep for that past year? It's documented by now that the NSA intercepts all internet traffic from anyone to anyone, as long as it goes through a hop in the US. They probably don't have the capacity to keep all of it stored, even short-term, but they do intercept everything so that they can analyze it to see if they need to store it. Yes, that includes all online activities of everyone in the US, even completely uninteresting people.

    15. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only one J word in your post.. I think the other one was hijacked!

    16. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Also, they are ordered to retain every single phone sex conversation

      They are just keeping an eye on the Secret Service advance teams.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    17. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by PPH · · Score: 1

      As long as you're watching the BBC, they won't care much.

      But the NSA, and undoubtedly their partner services such as the GCHQ have a secondary task of reporting criminal activity to the appropriate LE agency if they encounter it. No doubt, the BBC and British taxing authorities are interested in anyone bypassing the television tax. So any VPNs that are found that might be bypassing this tax could be throttled. Or cut off completely.

      The security services don't need to decrypt your traffic. They can just switch on BBC2 to see what you are watching. But they probably do track and report any instances of VPNs found carrying their content to the television police.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    18. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      You do realize that throughout most of US History the government has blatantly ignored various Constitutional rights, and that it has almost never led to the federal government actually going up for sale to the highest bidder? Just ask a black guy. There's no bribe that would have convinced the Feds to force a state to let him vote until the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

      The NSA will do things it can argue protect national Security. It will probably involve a lot of BS, and explaining away Constitutional rights, but both of those things are hallowed American traditions. It would not involve the RIAA without specific authorization from Congress, and/or a fairly convincing rationalization that ties piracy to their current mission.

    19. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. I'm waiting for it come out on DVD which I'll then download for free from the pirate bay.

    20. Re:is the NSA taking candy away from kids too? by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      But the NSA, and undoubtedly their partner services such as the GCHQ have a secondary task of reporting criminal activity to the appropriate LE agency if they encounter it. No doubt, the BBC and British taxing authorities are interested in anyone bypassing the television tax. So any VPNs that are found that might be bypassing this tax could be throttled. Or cut off completely.

      As long as you are not watching live TV, there is no law broken; however watching live British TV is illegal -- as I understand it. The laws were written before even VHS probably. Whilst I would happily pay the license fee to get genuine British TV in Peru (not some cut-down version), I know that will never happen because of regional licensing of programmes. They probably turn a blind eye, as the BBC promotes British values (reason/science-based, establishment, anti-alternatives, mostly royalist), and it is in their interest for British worldwide to continue to be kept in the loop. You don't have to agree with all of it to see the value of the rest. Maybe if I show my passport to my webcam and pass a facial recognition test, they could let me on.

  10. From an ISP network engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you are a US ISP, it is required that you have monitoring in place. If you don't want to hamper your entire infrastructure while doing so, you get a bunch of taps and install them all over your network. One very good provider for this is Gigamon. Taps do not add any latency in your traffic. They are completely invisible to all other network devices. Traffic shaping (throttling) is done by the source typically but can be done at the destination ISP. Basically, your connection is assigned a Package in the Shaper. The packages determine how fast each classification groups of traffic are allowed to go. Classifications are determined by whoever manages the shaper for that ISP. Shapers can also dynamically change the speed you are allowed to have for a classification group based on bandwidth used, time used, and volume of traffic.

    If you are not throttled from Germany to your home but are from Peru to your home, chances are you are throttled from your ISP in Peru. It is typical for transits to cross borders, so your traffic going through NYC is normal. BGP (the routing protocol of the internet) determined that to be the best path. This is mostly managed, but is still fairly dynamically determined by the routing protocol.

    Course of action: Switch ISPs, get a new IP address (if they are not very good at configuring a shaper this will work, otherwise not), try a proxy, stop using it for a day or more and it will go away (temporarily most likely). This is done dynamically in the shaper. There is not some dude with his finger on a 'throttle' button. Everything is automatic. Just figure out the how their throttling deterministic state diagram works and you can avoid throttling. Most likely they are throttling you because of your volume of use. It costs a lot for transit access and you are using more than most others by streaming through a vpn.

    1. Re:From an ISP network engineer by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Switching ISPs is one option.

      SSRR (Source Routing) will also work.

      If you think it's because of the encryption, switch to using PPOE and see if the problem resolves itself.

      Also, you can do TCP active probing to see which intermediate hop(s) actually have the slowdown; this is the same techniques used to detect black hole routes for when an ISP blocks ICMP packets, and you can use PMTU discovery.

    2. Re:From an ISP network engineer by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      Course of action: Switch ISPs, get a new IP address (if they are not very good at configuring a shaper this will work, otherwise not), try a proxy, stop using it for a day or more and it will go away (temporarily most likely). This is done dynamically in the shaper. There is not some dude with his finger on a 'throttle' button. Everything is automatic. Just figure out the how their throttling deterministic state diagram works and you can avoid throttling. Most likely they are throttling you because of your volume of use. It costs a lot for transit access and you are using more than most others by streaming through a vpn.

      Thanks for the explanation and suggestions. The volume of use is not excessive, typically 20GB a month, 40GB max. But maybe the shaper is very sensitive, because the bandwidth peaks are quite high probably. So perhaps I could try and limit the peak bandwidth used to avoid triggering it as another option.

    3. Re:From an ISP network engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The volume is relative. If you use 20-40 gigs/mo and most others use 10-15 gigs/mo, then you are a very heavy user. Older shapers have hard limits programmed into their state machines but newer ones have relative state machines, where some hard cap for total link volume is set. Either way, you're likely a heavy user. Also, using a vpn is much more taxing than web browsing. In many ways it is seen as 'heavy use' just by using it.

      Another course of action is to get a business class service from the ISP. Since doing things like p2p vpn is typical use, it will likely not be blocked.

  11. If it's for real - show us traceroute output by Yomers · · Score: 0

    Sorry, telepaths are currently on a vacation. Show us traceroute output from your home to VPS and from VPS to home IP.

    Yeah, and not to offend you but just in case - please erase last digits of your home and VPS IP's before posting, or you may end up with no connectivity at all ;)

  12. OMG NSA SPOOK SCARY! by BitZtream · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Seriously, get a grip. Your precious little VPN is something they do not give a single flying frak about.

    IF they did, you would never know. Duping a packet to another port for the NSA costs you exactly 0 in latency. Its done in silicon, and its no different than a broadcast packet as far as the hardware is concerned, i.e. 0 performance penalty.

    You're pointing fingers at people and you have no clue whats going on. I can say that safely from your post.

    As they say, when in America ... when you sound of pounding hooves ... you don't look for Zebra's, you look for horses.

    I suggest you look for a more sane reason, start by dropping your paranoia.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:OMG NSA SPOOK SCARY! by Yomers · · Score: 1

      Anyway it's just as easy to tap traffic after it exit VPN endpoint in UK, so your UK VPN does not hurt anyone, use it if it makes you content. It will always be slower - all your traffic will be routed trough your UK VDS, so latency to a given website will be sum of latency from your home to UK VDS and from UK VDS to a given website.

      But yes, now you can watch BBC online - it will not let you with non UK IP. And to watch hulu you need US IP. And if you live in one of the countries in growing "Wanna Great Firewall like in China" club...
      No, internet is not fragmented, no, no. Ok, maybe just a bit. For now.

      Always yours, Captain Obvious.

  13. Probably not sinister, but you never know... by Above · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I work in the ISP industry, and here's my $0.02...

    The NSA (or other spies), not likely. Everything I have ever seen about what they do is passive monitoring. What that means is that somewhere there is a pretty dumb device (like an optical splitter) that takes one signal and makes two copies, one goes to the NSA, one on to its destination. In this arrangement there is no way for the NSA to inject data at all, including slowing it down. I am highly skeptical any government spying is the direct cause. It may be indirect, I'll come back to that in a minute.

    Rate shaping is entirely possible, and would be most likely in your immediate provider. It's entirely common for residential consumer ISP's to employ products like Sandvine, or even more crude QOS controls to rate limit particular types of traffic (e.g. VPN or VOIP). Most won't admit to what they are doing as well.

    Rate shaping is less likely, but possible at the country level. This is seen mostly in countries with strong government controls on technology (think Iran, China, North Korea). Egypt was doing it at one point in time. I'm not an expert on Peru, but I would not expect this problem in Peru.

    Lastly, is plain old congestion. Likely your ISP has multiple paths to reach Europe, riding undersea cables. These are the most expensive assets an ISP owns, and often get congested before they get upgraded. It's entirely possible for instance there is one cable they use from South American to Western Europe that is congested, while another goes from South America to the US and is fine. You can probably map these routes out by traceroute, and may find that particular routes always show poor performance. This also happens, but to a lesser degree, where two ISP's meet. There can be peering disputes, or one customer may not order enough capacity from their vendor. Either way the result is full ports that degrade service for everyone passing through them.

    Now, here's where the spies come back in. If a particular spy agency decrees "all new connections must have our spy apparatus on them" they can in fact be the delay to a new connection getting set up. It's not that they are delaying any packet traffic once it is up, but rather they are delaying the installation by not having their equipment ready on time for a new connection. I don't think this happens often, but I'm sure it does happen in some places.

    So sadly, this is probably some plain old incompetence/bad luck. Someone either could not afford a timely upgrade, or didn't correctly order an upgrade early enough to get it installed before there was a problem, and there's now congestion somewhere. If it's not bad luck it's probably your provider deciding your particular type of traffic is "bad", and should be rate limited down.

  14. Some suggestions by EmperorArthur · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some more info would be appreciated. So, here's the basics of a few things you can do to make sure it really is the network*. First use iperf on the client and server. Test it on both the tunnel interface and the WAN interface. Second, use top via a separate ssh session. Make sure OpenVPN isn't eating all your CPU or memory. Lastly, what provider are you using? Lately the default Debian build that Edis.at gave me needs an ifconfig up/down every other day.

    I've had a similar problem when using my own VPS as an HTTP proxy via OpenVPN. It turned out, the proxy application was crap. Allowing the machine to route packets and using it as a default gateway for all traffic fixed the problem, or at least worked around it.

    Now. If it really is blocking, there are a couple of ways around it. The more complicated ones involve using some other VPN application. When dealing with more than one client, that rapidly becomes annoying. A simple one is using an SSH connection as a SOCKS proxy for your browser. It's not elegant, but it works. Another way is to mask your OpenVPN connection by encapsulating the UDP or TCP packets. Once again, SSH port forwarding works, but that's a TCP solution. socat was designed to do things like that, so it seems like a good choice. Finally, there's Ping Tunnel. It embeds traffic in ICMP packets.

    Whoever is throttling you might detect one or more of these, but they're probably using some sort of signature based detection. Just about anything that requires a command line should get through.

    Remember, since you are technically savvy enough to roll your own, you are the one percent. Good luck, and please let us know how it goes.

    *I know you're probably familiar with all of these things. Just assume that I put this section here for those who aren't.

    --
    So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    1. Re:Some suggestions by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for suggesting iperf -- I'd not tried it. I ran through their tests. Both TCP and UDP show about 400kbps on the WAN interface. Running 4 parallel connections for TCP also adds up to around 400kbps more or less, so more connections doesn't actually help, it seems. Over the tunnel I also get about 400kbps. I seem to get much less than 400kbps in practice but the order of magnitude from iperf is right. 'top' doesn't go below 99% idle. I'm running Debian stable. The only thing I have from the host is the kernel. Nothing changed around the time when the bandwidth drop started. I don't use a proxy, just route traffic as you say.

      I appear to be in a throttled state right now for that IP address. Maybe they'll release the throttling at some point. Then the question is how not to trigger it again. If it is just bandwidth and IP address based, then whatever approach I take will not make a difference -- except Ping Tunnel maybe. I don't get through more than 20GB a month, though, it is not excessive. If it is signature-based, then yes maybe I can change something and not trigger it.

      Wrappers would only be useful to evade signature detection, though. I already tried OpenVPN UDP, OpenVPN TCP and plain HTTP and they're all slow right now. I've kept a list of your suggestions to try if/when I'm unthrottled. Thanks for the ideas.

    2. Re:Some suggestions by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1

      Glad to help.

      The reason why I think may of the wrappers will work is just because they aren't commonly used. Right now people can go pay for an OpenVPN service and download an installer that will do all the work for them. Like tor, OpenVPN is a big target.

      The only other thing I can think of is ping times.* It might not look like it, but HTTP is horribly latency sensitive. After every web page is loaded, all the images and javascript are downloaded. Repeat for about a dozen times because javascript is horrible. So, try noscript, it might speed up your browsing. It certainly will make quite a few web pages less annoying.

      *Once again, you probably already know this. Keep assuming that I'm just ranting for the noobs. We all were naive at some point. Then some helpful soul points us to TV Tropes or 4chan.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    3. Re:Some suggestions by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      I set up my own OpenVPN with an obscure port number, but using common recommended settings otherwise. Ping times are ~220ms. In my HTTP tests I was downloading one large file with 'wget', so JS/etc weren't an issue. I notice that other people mention that iperf tends to give theoretical rather than practical figures, so that agrees with my experience. Someone below suggested 'pchar' which looks promising but I haven't managed to get results out of it yet.

  15. ask slashdot: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    sometimes when I wake up, there's white goo all over my penis. It wasn't there when I went to sleep! Do you think the NSA is breaking into my house and doing something to me?

    1. Re:ask slashdot: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    2. Re:ask slashdot: by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Funny

      No. That's the KGB. Since the alleged fall of the Soviet Union, they've had to run their operations under far more secrecy than ever before. Sometimes, this means they have to leave a job before they have a chance to clean up entirely.

      In your case, you've become a test subject for the Soviet loyalists' conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. They are attempting to steal your very essence, and it is your patriotic duty to resist them. Place loaded mousetraps around your bed to damage the stealth robots that are invading your sanctuary of slumber. To prevent their essence-extractor from invading your body, apply a liberal coating of cyanoacrylate to your penis before sleep. It may cause an unusual sensation, but that's far better than the empty fatigue the Communists will inflict.

      The NSA is actually fully aware of this conspiracy, and you should assist their efforts to protect our precious bodily fluids. As it is clear that the Red Menace is most interested in corrupting your penis, you must aid the resistance research that is underway. As the NSA must also keep their research secret, no scientists will contact you directly, but you can still contribute to the noble cause by announcing publicly every time your penis functions normally, and especially whenever it does not. This is best accomplished by loudly shouting your results from an open second-story window, followed by displaying your penis for remote optical inspection. Be sure to announce that you are a subject of General Jack Ripper's studies.

      The Soviet collapse was a sham, designed to lull the Americans into a false sense of security. The KGB have not given up, and neither can we. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural fluids.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:ask slashdot: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if this is the correct response to a troll / sarcasm, but I like it. I like it a lot. Thank you for the smile, Sarten-X!

  16. Tinfoil hat much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously man, I thought I had a healthy level of paranoia but this is a+ comedy material here :D

  17. I scoffe at your "homor"! by For+a+Free+Internet · · Score: 0, Insightful

    My ideas about compotore technology and social revolution and FREEDOM are so advanced, so revolutionary, that most people on Slashdort mistake them for "jorkes." Wrong! I am totally serial.

    --
    UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
    1. Re:I scoffe at your "homor"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who gave a slashdot account to that computer trained to tell jokes?

    2. Re:I scoffe at your "homor"! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Didn't you know? Slashdot is a large Turing Test system. Most of the participants are AIs.

      Interestingly, the most promising test results are with the "First Post" trolls. Apparently nobody can imagine that an AI could be that stupid.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:I scoffe at your "homor"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you know? Slashdot is a large Turing Test system. Most of the participants are AIs.

      Artificially Inseminated?..

    4. Re: I scoffe at your "homor"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure if I even began to know what I was talking about, my head would explode.

  18. pchar? by strombrg · · Score: 2

    You might be able to tell which hop is slow using something like pchar: http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~strombrg/network-performance.html

    1. Re:pchar? by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      'pchar' looks interesting. I left it running all night piped to tee but if it generated any output, it never flushed it. I'm trying again now.

  19. an incorrect theory, because port mirroring by raymorris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That may have been their theory, or it may have been they wondered if US gov was intentionally slowing VPN connections from that part of the world.

    If the theory was that capturing data would slow it down, the answer is "no". For that, you'd use port mirroring. Where a switch or router would normally take data in on one line and output it on another, you set it to accept data on the one line and output it on TWO others simultaneously. The data still flows at the same speed. It just flows to two locations separately - the intended recipient and the government.

    1. Re:an incorrect theory, because port mirroring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, actually...

      SOMETIMES, it does slow it down, or at least increases the latency (and at high bandwidth the increased delay results in lower speed unless the protocol takes this into account).

      If you were communicating locally (to someone else who is in the same area as you, for instance using VoIP), your traffic need not go through the router at the central office which is typically where the tap happens. It is inefficient to trombone traffic, so the carriers tend not to unless they have to. But, if they put a tap on you, then they have to force all traffic through the central office---even local area traffic---and you might then notice that your latency went up by a few ms.

      Of course if they tap all traffic routinely, then the latency is always higher than it needs to be and no-one notices.

    2. Re:an incorrect theory, because port mirroring by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I bet the traffic from Peru to the US always goes through one of very few gateways anyway, even without the NSA interfering.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:an incorrect theory, because port mirroring by ameyer17 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But I wouldn't think the extra few ms of latency would slow the data flow by 95%. In fact, I don't think it'd even be noticeable to the naked eye except for exceptional circumstances like gaming.

    4. Re:an incorrect theory, because port mirroring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      providing they use hardware and not software for that.

  20. You are all major assholes by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1, Interesting

    | It suffices for them to simply capture raw data

    Ok, so the same people that say it can't be piracy because no one was deprived of their DVD give a free pass to "The NSA is capturing the data"??

    They didn't capture the data, because if they did then when did they release it? It wasn't like they were tagging an antelope and then let it go at some later time. Why do you give a stamp of approval that the "NSA captures data" as if they held it hostage at Gitmo and wouldn't let the datas go unimpeded.

    It isn't like they detained the data without a warrant and won't release it --- they let it go freely. You guys are acting like they are backing up your data stream like some fat dude that is clogging the toilet ... and you woun;dn't let this terminology pass with "piracy" because that involves depriving someone of their property ....

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  21. I don't see how it isn't by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the ISPs will buy off Congress, meanwhile even suggesting we regulate the ISPs to enforce net neutrality is met with jeers about bureaucracy. Way I see it we're damned if we don't in that scenario, but I'm in the minority :(.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  22. Traceroute is to mainly fix routing problems today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Many ISP's perform what is known as ICMP rate limiting. Traceroute and Ping both use this ICMP protocol *i'm not going to get into semantics* where as you start traversing the internet past your internet service provider your pings and such to any point along the path have a high chance of being dropped due to this. The only way to see your actual latency is using a host-to-host ping. From your source destination to your final destination. Traceroute acts as sending a ping to each and every hop in between the source and final destination (assuming the TTL doesn't expire or somebody's carrier firewall just doesn't' start letting replies come back through, ie, multiple * * * responses but still able to reach your end destination), they are in no way obligated to reply properly and or in a timely fashion to your Ping request. During the early days of the internet we didn't have many of the problems that we have today and these tools worked flawlessly during this time and really could tell you where your latency is (these tools still function normally in a local lan if you are not doing any "crazy" firewalling tactics). This is no longer the case with ping an traceroute.

    IN EXTREME CASES it may be possible to route around other carriers using private tunnels, It's not something your average joe will not likely be able to accomplish without multiple services across the country or paying for some sort of service to do so. AKA you are a business with $$$$. There are instances where it can be done, but are few and very far in between.

      If your ISP only has 1 way out to reach specific destinations which are having problems. Provide them traceroutes showing them good responses AND bad responses from when and where you are seeing the problem. The only thing a carrier is going to care about is your "average" response time in milliseconds, not your "maximum" response time.

  23. Blame the NSA by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Paranoid much? They only make copies of the data to process off-line, they don't insert themselves into the data stream to do it in real time.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  24. Bounce through SSH or use Tor by SurfTheWorld · · Score: 1

    Use OpenVPN in TCP mode (rather than it's default UDP mode).

    Then set up local ssh port forwards through a bounce host you know works well.

    Instead of going from Peru --> UK instead go from Peru --> Localhost --> SSH bounce host in Germany --> UK.

    Or try an onion network like Tor.

    --
    Do it for da shorties
  25. Re:WTF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems you ain't much smarter either. :D

  26. Obligatory Guide to Knowing Who Is Listening by guttentag · · Score: 1

    Martin Bishop: Sorry to waste your time, gentlemen. I don't work for the government.
    Agent Wallace: We know. (flashes a badge) National Security Agency.
    Martin Bishop: Oh. You're the guys I hear breathing on the other end of my phone.
    Agent Wallace: No, that's the FBI. We're not chartered for domestic surveillance.
    Martin Bishop: Oh I see. You just overthrow governments. Set up friendly dictators.
    Agent Wallace: No, that's the CIA. We protect our government's communications. We try to break the other fella's codes. We're the good guys, Marty.
    Martin Bishop: Gee, I can't tell you what a relief that is, Dick.

    Courtesy of Sneakers (1992) (video clip of the above here)

  27. Slow data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My computer is very slow. Do you think I should plug it in?

  28. WTF is wrong with yoe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO. The NSA is not interfering with you watching your videos, you fucking schizoid.

    Why on earth is /. now posting the delusions of the mentally disturbed? FFS your video streaming slows and you think its sinister government agents? Get a fucking grip.

  29. Misunderstanding PRISM by longk · · Score: 1

    You're misunderstanding what PRISM supposedly does. (And you're not the only one.) PRISM does not cause any delays whatsoever - it's not a man-in-the-middle attack. It's simply a copy of all traffic on a fiber. Also an old fashioned "tap" on your Internet connection (usually port mirror at the ISP or Internet exchange) does not cause any delays.

    Switch to a different VPS provider.

  30. Reset your router buffers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disconnect all of the cables from your router (including power). Then shake it vigorously over your head. Reconnect and you'll be good to go. Repeat as needed.

  31. Same problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've noticed the same thing. I play a lot of 1+1 lightning chess on freechess.org over Transatlantic connections, and several opponents have been complaining about my lag.

    Freechess.org recently experienced a two-week downtime. I'm now led to believe it was the NSA installing some backdoor technology on the servers.

    My most serious worry is that the NSA has gotten a whiff of my steganographic IP-over-lightning-chess tunnel and might be able to unscramble my security-through-obscurity encoding scheme.

    (Note to opponents on freechess.org: I don't resign desperate positions because my steganographic scheme suffers unless the game terminates from the server end.)

  32. Passive monitoring is NOT all that is necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All government tapping is span port based. This means that it is passive, not active, so there is no latency involved.

    All of it's passive? That's ridiculous. Web browsers and command-line SSH clients are the only things I use that even tell me when they're suspicious about a MitM. Everything else just uses "encryption" like it's some kind of magic, never bothering to look at the key fingerprints, compare to last time, look it up, etc. Think for a moment, and you'll see there's a lot of plaintext to be gained, by anyone who can bear the expensive of active tapping.

    And if users put up with things getting mysteriously slower, then the expense might not be so high.

  33. Ridiculous, but ... by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Could the NSA be slowing all VPNs to/from South America because of Snowden and Greenwald?

    Such a thing would be ridiculous and childish - however things like the diversion of an aircraft that didn't even have Snowdon on it show that the NSA is being ridiculous and childish. Instead of toy soldiers and a way to funnel money out to friends in the private sector the task should be either handed over to military professionals with a focus on things that matter or abandoned entirely. Collecting more data than can be sorted let alone interpreted is a waste of time that just provides a false sense of security.

    1. Re:Ridiculous, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of sending data on the net in hexadecimal use Sexagesima then encrypt it, it would be fun to fuck with their smart-ass software and see what it makes of it.

    2. Re:Ridiculous, but ... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      You know one thing I fucking hate about all this NSA-talk? It assumes that the NSA is the driving force in all this. That's total BS. If this is a problem it's not caused by the NSA, or any single government.

      Take the Presidential planes. There is no way for the NSA to make Italy deny Evo Morales the right to re-fuel in Italy. It provides no aid to Italy. It provides information to Italy, but the people who determine whether Italy gets said information are not in the NSA. Higher-level people in the US Government have some clout with the Italians, but not as much as you think. It's not like we spend $1.5 Billion a year maintaining the Italian Military. Which works so well against Egypt. Even if we had the power, why would we use it? It's not like Evo Moraleses stays up at night worrying about whether Barack Obama likes him.

      The logical conclusion is clearly not that Obama or the NSA arranged for Morales plane to be delayed, for the simple reason that Obama and the NSA just don't have that kind of clout. The people who do have that kind of clout are the French, who have to approve any Italian budget (and also the budgets of Portugal and Spain). They also have a long tradition of telling their public whatever BS looks good, and then having said public buy it. The US can tolerate something like Wikileaks, the French can't because it's hard to convince your masses you're the good guys when everyone reads the internal documents Opération Turquoise generated.

      I suspect what actually happened is that most of Europe is very uncomfortable with Wikileaks. Morales wasn't, because Wikileaks embarrasses the US and refuses to criticize Latin American leftists. Roughly the day of Morales being inconvenienced by Europe Snowden flew to Russia with Wikileaks help. A few calls fropm the French, and everyone is sending a message to Evo Morales: don't assume that helping a friend of wikleaks won't bite you on the ass in Europe.

  34. Discourage encryption? by FishOuttaWater · · Score: 1

    If I was a law enforcement agency, I would certainly consider slowing down VPN's just to discourage people from using them. So much the easier for me to snoop.

  35. Aside from all the speculative debate, a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On Github there's actually a pull request for OpenVPN connection obfuscation. It's shown to help prevent shaping from DPI hardware/software setups.
    https://github.com/OpenVPN/openvpn/pull/7
    Also, if you don't feel like recompiling OpenVPN with the new patch, I'd switch VPNs to one in another datacenter. Run OpenVPN over TCP on port 443.

    -A VPN Service Provider

  36. I have a OpenVPN you could try by rgbe · · Score: 1

    Try this service and see how it compares to yours:
    https://www.vortexvpn.com/
    See if you get the same behaviour. You get 1GB of free data, if you email support I can give you more. I could also open port 443 if they seem to be shaping non-Http(s) traffic. I have had it running for a few days. There is a server in Dublin you could use.

  37. Meanwhile in Britain by BeCre8iv · · Score: 2

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/time-for-a-change-as-mod-staff-run-up-40000-speaking-clock-bill-8782535.html
    Ministry of Defence (UK) employees spend £40000 on illicit use of the speaking clock.

    Down the hall, GCHQ is listening for free.

    --
    This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
  38. use openvpn over TCP port 443 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If not already doing so, use TCP 443 for openvpn. Unless they are doing deep packet inspection, they can't tell this is vpn traffic (well, by your volume maybe). But, it is probably your best chance of avoiding throttling.

    If you get good speeds for a short while after changing ports, maybe try hopping around regularly to diff ports-- would be a pain, but it sounds like your connection is otherwise unusable, so if this worked, it might be worth it.

    If throttling purely on volume, there isn't much you can do about it other than switch ISPs, if that is an option.

    Good luck.

    BTW, I'd suspect your ISP throttling if the above speeds things up (even temporarily). But, it could just be a failure somewhere. My connection has huge packet loss whenever it rains, or the wind blows strong; Charter in California-- they have not been able to fix the issues in 3 years, but to their credit, things have improved quite a bit in the last year, and even at its worse, it is much more reliable than ATT was (the only two ISPs in my area).

    1. Re:use openvpn over TCP port 443 by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      Thanks -- I'll try port 443 if/when they unthrottle me. Yes, I also get packet loss when there are storms. I guess they interfere with the microwave links over the mountains. Anyway, that is irrelevant as I get good bandwidth on all connections apart from that one IP so the weather doesn't explain it.

  39. httptunnel by cdp0 · · Score: 1

    I had a similar problem with O2 Telefonica, over 3G, in Czech Republic. Their FUP is quite bad. After you reach the imposed limit, they will throttle *all* connections individually to something like 4-5KB/s. Using OpenVPN, or even just HTTPS was impossible.

    However, I noticed that HTTP connections were allowed a throughput 4-5 times higher. It's still very low, but usable. My guess is that they separate HTTP connections from everything else. Note that using OpenVPN over TCP port 80 did not help. So, I've started using OpenVPN over httptunnel. While it has some problems, it did offer me an overall better throughput. The downside is that you need it server-side too.

    Bottom line, try httptunnel

    1. Re:httptunnel by map200uk · · Score: 1

      I was on o2 UK until a year ago ..moved to EE so I could get unlimited 3g and as you say...the FUP is quite bad..when I had 1gb/month allowance..after that EVERYTHING was slow lie you say 4-5kb/s max ...no chance of streaming any music or videos..but websites would just about load!! Really in this day and age all carriers should offer unlimited 3g - and O2 did used to back in 2010 when I had my first iphone! then a year later and it's capped;/

  40. Other tricks to bypass geographic restrictions by YaHooL · · Score: 1

    Did you know that in most cases, you only need to bypass whatever method is used for checking your location. The server that does this, is usually not the one you stream your video from. It means that after passing the location check, you can actually connect directly to the video server for watching the video itself (and suffer much less from connectivity issues, if at all).

    Look at this trick for example.

    "Basically we are interested in proxying content only for certain domains. The actual streaming media sits on CDN networks and is usually not geo-locked. The amount of proxying we'll end up doing will be relatively insignificant compared to a VPN-based setup."

    In case you want to try it out, there is a free service that does it. I'm a customer of a paid one which combines both VPN ("ibVPN") and DNS ("ibDNS") based services. On the paid front there are many other services that offer similar functionality. Most offer several hours of free trial, so you could see which ones works best for you.

    Having said that, did you try contacting your ISP for support? Perhaps they change something in their routing tables which happens to work very bad for you? Maybe they can help.

    1. Re:Other tricks to bypass geographic restrictions by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      Did you know that in most cases, you only need to bypass whatever method is used for checking your location. The server that does this, is usually not the one you stream your video from. It means that after passing the location check, you can actually connect directly to the video server for watching the video itself (and suffer much less from connectivity issues, if at all).

      Having said that, did you try contacting your ISP for support? Perhaps they change something in their routing tables which happens to work very bad for you? Maybe they can help.

      Many thanks for the suggestions. I'll investigate them.

      Talking to Telefonica leads to premature aging and death, and is best avoided. In case of any problem I go to the regulator OSIPTEL first to hear the truth, and then armed with the truth I can detect their lies and misdirections and force a solution. This works for billing and contract problems, but really I think the chance of resolving a technical issue like this through Telefonica support is nil.

  41. Use MLVPN to create a VPN with multiple connection by edzehome · · Score: 1

    Maybe the project I've been working on could be usefull to you.

    MLVPN can do what you want by creating multiple connections and aggregating them together.

    You can find it on https://github.com/zehome/MLVPN Let us know if it's usefull to you or not!

  42. I don't think it's traffic shaping at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm betting there's nothing wrong with your internet connection as far as being throttled...I can imagine if you're having to route through the US and then over UK it's probably your crappy peering from where you live. I'm in the US, and even though I have a 305mbps connection I never see more than 30mbps when connected to a torrent seedbox in Europe, and that's because the connection between the US and UK is crappy with large amounts of bandwidth. Going from the US to Canada though allows me to max out my speeds however. If you have more than 25-30 hops when you run a traceroute, you can be sure that this is your problem...not being throttled.

  43. Re:Kathryn17812706 by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Somebody mod this cunt down into oblivion, please.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  44. MTU size? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you use VPN to connect anywhere else? Can you test your throughput for that connection?
    When a regular TCP or UDP packet is encapsulated in an ESP packet (used for IPsec VPNs), the encapsulated ESP packet is bigger than the original packet, which in some cases where an ISP has configured MTUs and packet fragmentation in a certain way can cause large ESP packets to be dropped, because they exceed the MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) size.

    An easy way to test this is to send pings with increasingly bigger packet sizes and see when they start to drop. (using ping -s yourpacketsize if you're on linux).
    If you see that the packets drop of at say 1460 bytes, set your MTU well below that, at something like 1340 bytes. If you can't configure MTU, set your MSS (Maximum Segment Size) to 1300 bytes, making the MTU 1340.

  45. EFF's Switzerland Network Testing Tool by alanw · · Score: 3, Informative

    The OP mentions Sandvine: the EFF has a tool called Switzerland.

    Is your ISP interfering with your BitTorrent connections? Cutting off your VOIP calls? Undermining the principles of network neutrality? In order to answer those questions, concerned Internet users need tools to test their Internet connections and gather evidence about ISP interference practices. After all, if it weren't for the testing efforts of Rob Topolski, the Associated Press, and EFF, Comcast would still be stone-walling about their now-infamous BitTorrent blocking efforts.

    Developed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Switzerland is an open source software tool for testing the integrity of data communications over networks, ISPs and firewalls. It will spot IP packets which are forged or modified between clients, inform you, and give you copies of the modified packets.

    Switzerland is designed to detect the modification or injection of packets of data traveling over IP networks, including those introduced by anti-P2P tools from Sandvine (widely believed to be used by Comcast to interfere with BitTorrent uploads) and AudibleMagic, advertising injection systems like FairEagle, censorship systems like the Great Firewall of China, and other systems that we don't know about yet.

  46. Err, what about PRISM? by Pricetx · · Score: 1

    Wasn't the whole reason one of the NSAs main schemes was called PRISM because it described the process they used to capture data. They would have optical fibre cables run through a junction box which would "split" the signal towards both the intended destination, and NSA hardware, therefore acting like a "prism". This therefore would both not affect latency, and not lower throughput.

  47. I doubt the NSA, but by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

    I rather doubt that the NSA is the cause for the loss in throughput but if it were I can only see on reason why. While many others have pointed out that replication of your data for "intelligence" purposes would be unlikely to cause a lower throughput because replication in and of itself would be pretty much instantaneous. They are likely to have that kind of equipment and storage at a limited number of locations (thankfully, for now at least). Your traffic (along with many others) could be getting artificially routed to one of these locations for replication. This being government work they probably spent hundreds of millions on the facility, but were cheap with the fiber going to it, creating a bottleneck.

  48. Re:Use MLVPN to create a VPN with multiple connect by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

    It seems that I was wrong about the multiple connections getting more bandwidth, so unfortunately MLVPN won't help me -- but thanks all the same. I was looking at multi-path in the past when we were considering moving to a distant village which only had slow 512kbps connections, to tie several of them together. This definitely has its use cases! I've made a note.

  49. Tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Run a bunch of tests from different locations using iperf. Is it a bandwidth or latency problem? If you send just icmp pings, is the latency always high? Does it occasionally change from low to high? Does the latency only change from low to high when you run iperf tests?

  50. Probably bandwidth management by ruir · · Score: 1

    First, my piece of advice. Hire someone who know what is doing to debug this situation. Now for my suspicion. I wouldnt be much surprised if the Peru provider has some data/monetary limitation and just optimise the most common traffic. This often is done with deep packet inspection at the layer 7, so i doubt it would be easy to try to work around it, besides changing providers.

  51. Re:The NSA? Are you that stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Your traffic doesn't go through the U.S. so how the fuck can it be the NSA?"

    You have no idea what the NSA does abroad, obviously.

  52. Yes by Livius · · Score: 1

    Their function is to *look* like they are tracking down actual enemies to national security while they really track down ordinary criminals, political opposition, and economic competitors in so-called allied nations.

    Creating just a little bit of doubt in the public, without actually compromising their theoretical secrecy, accomplishes that.

  53. terabits + $billions = hardware. $200 switch mirro by raymorris · · Score: 1

    A decent SOHO hardware switch does port mirroring. I just paid $99.99 for a Netgear switch which will mirror at full speed.

    To do network mirroring like that in software you'd pretty much need to be flat broke or incompetent. As in totally, government style incompetent. Oh, yeah I suppose you have a point then. :)

  54. Where is this traceroute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) As many others have mentioned the NSA monitoring almost definitely passive mirroring a port so there is no slowdown and there is nothing that will show up in the traceroute.

    2) All other indications are the NSA doesn't broadcast themselves in the path. I highly doubt you are going to find a traceroute that goes like:
          Level-3-router
          ATT-Router
          NSA-DATA-CAPTURE
          VPN-Service

    While we generally don't give the government much credit for being able to do things properly I highly doubt there will be any DNS look-ups that clearly identify the hop in the path to be the NSA. So without a little evidence to backup the NSA controlling the path I'm going to say that they are having no part in this at all (except maybe mirroring which we've established wouldn't show up or slow down the connection).

  55. Telefonica known for "caching" by jbroom · · Score: 1

    For what it's worth, Telefónica is notorious for doing LOTS of testing different ways of throttling, caching, blocking, accelerating etc... (and not being that "great" at it)
    The general INTENT is not "omg, they want to block me from doing things!!!", but rather they are trying to save/optimize on bandwidth. As far as I know, they have at times been known to block SOME traffic they consider "voice" as it comes in conflict with their main business line, but mostly this has been tried and then stopped as it generated more headaches than cash.
    With all the caching/accelerating, etc, a LOT of times they mess up with ICMP packs which handle testing MTU, in conjunction with changing the actual MTU of the links, the result of this is that your kit sends larger blocks than the links can handle and then they get mashed/munged during fragmentation/reassembly. And the consequence of that is that a lot of "real" packets don't get through (often the ones on or around the *perceived* MTU limit), so your data then behaves as if it was working on a VERY lossy link (imagine around 40%+ packet loss...). You won't see problems with a regular ping, but you may if you check with ping sizes around the MTU limit.
    At other times, as Telefónica is trying to optimize using DPI (deep packet inspection) to check what protocol is being used, they may not correctly recognize your traffic and thus munge it in someway. Effectively acting as a throttle, but not because they actually "want" to throttle.
    What can you do about it? Not much, because all of this is handled by the inner sanctum of the tech-priests and they don't communicate with mere mortals such as tech support of commercial reps, there's no way to get through...
    With a regular residential grade link, the attitude from Telefonica is "take it or leave it as-is, we don't care, this is what we give". In general they are valid for the purpose, but if you want business grade quality AND the possibility of complaining (and being heard), you need to get a business grade link (ie ditch Speedy and get info-internet at 5x the price with 1/4 the speed).
    It's nice to WANT to notch it up to "they are throttling me" or "NSA is spying on me" and any other conspiracy theory, but once you mention Telefonica it's more a case of "Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence".
    (and yes, NSA is probably spying on you ANYWAY...).
    The above come from a lot of experience with different telco's, a lot of contact with people inside telefonica and seeing how telefonica operates in quite a few countries (including Spain and Peru). Just take it as face value, I'm not trying to prove a point. If it helps great... if not, well, good luck with other venues...
    My $0.02

    1. Re:Telefonica known for "caching" by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      Yes, "take it or leave it" is the only option. The throttling I'm seeing is amazingly consistent and just for that one IP address as far as I can see, so I think it is real throttling being done by their software, although probably no human in Telefonica has any idea that it is happening, even the guy that configured/misconfigured it. Yes, traceroute shows all "* * *" through Telefonica networks most of the time, and pchar gets stuck. I will consider your advice about MTUs and fiddle with that a bit.

      The question is how to adapt to whatever they're doing to the network. I will experiment with the suggestions people have made here.

  56. shooting comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should consider that the Florida shooting was in self defense. The trial showed that Martin had tried to murder Zimmerman, got shot when Z was
    able to get a gun out.
    Whatever might have angered Martin, that did not justify murdering the guy who was angering him. Forensic evidence showed Martin was on
    top, and absence of injuries (however slight) to Martin and presence of many injuries to Zimmerman showed Z could not have
    been the attacker.

    The press played this incident up as a racial profile shooting, but if you pay attention to what actually happened, it was no such thing.

  57. MTU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had vpn issues that turned out to be packet breakage. Lowering the MTU on my end helped.

  58. Blaming the French? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I know you guys hate the French for reminding you that they gave you a country every time the US tries to put pressure on them but you are going a bit beyond freedom fries here. Look up extraordinary rendition and you'll see that US agencies had enough clout to get away with abducting people all over Europe while European governments pretended to look the other way.

    1. Re:Blaming the French? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Dude,

      The US has so little clout in Italy that the Italians charged our station chief with kidnapping because of one extraordinary rendition. Convicted him, and 23 colleagues, including the guy who flew the plane, too. The countries you're thinking of are probably Poland and Canada, which did not block the Morales flight. Italy did. Extraordinary rendition proves my point. Italy does not give two shits about pleasing the US. They also do not give two shits about pleasing Spain or Portugal. Therefore the only options are that a) Italy decided Snowden sucks and just happened to do the same thing about it those other countries or b) the French co-iordinated everything.

      It's kind of amazing that somebody who mistakes Poland for Italy is accusing me of being provincial.

      BTW, before you talk about how great France really look at the timeline of Operation Turquoise. During the Rwandan genocide the UN did nothing, largely because the veto-wielding French assured everyone their school chums running Rwanda could not possibly be murdering 10% of the country with Chinese machetes. Then, after all the handy Tutsis and moderate Hutus were dead and the Tutsi-exile RPF troops were beating the Hutu-murdering Rwandan Government forces the French convinced everyone else to let them send 2.5k troops to enforce a cease-fire.

      That's right, they waited until all possible victims were dead, then they sent troops to ensure nobody could remove the victimizers from power.

      Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying anybody in the French government planned to be quite this evil, and I'll freely admit that following France's lead would have saved the US from a couple of recent disasters (Iraq and Vietnam were both wars the French really wanted us to not get involved in). I'm just saying that you have to go back a long way in US history to get a moral fuck-up of this magnitude, and we've probably already apologized for it. The French, OTOH, insist on justifying the genocide through their courts (they've actually charged Kagame with assassinating his predecessor, which is exactly like charging Ben-Gurion with the Reichstag fire), refuse to convict anyone on the pro-French Hutu side of anything (apparently 800k dead black people don;t count as evidence against a Francophone), and generally give former genocidaires excellent lives.

    2. Re:Blaming the French? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You are really suggesting that the French can control Italian politics?
      Also I don't know why you are mistaking me for someone that likes French governments just because I don't swallow your silly freedom fries bullshit. A physicist I met helped catch two French terrorists that just happened to be employed by the French government at the time they were setting off bombs and killing people, I'm under no illusions as to what sort of scumbags have been running that country. However the USA should take responsibility for their own scumbags instead of pretending someone else is at fault.

    3. Re:Blaming the French? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The second thing is why would France be overtly helping US intelligence instead of extending a middle finger in their direction? It's against the nature of just about everyone in French politics.

    4. Re:Blaming the French? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I am saying the French have a lot more control of Italian politics then the US. And if you paid any attention to Europe at all you'd say the exact same thing. There was a whole conference where the French and Germans had veto power over the entire Italian budget in 2011, and recent Italian budgets have avoided a new conference by the skin of their teeth. Italy pisses off Hollande the French might insist on a new conference and new austerity measures the Italians hate, Italy pisses off the Bolivians and nobody gives a shit because Bolivia is a long way away.

      As for why the French would do this, you're clearly anglo-something. France doesn't divide the world into allies and enemies as simplistically as the Americans, Brits, and our Anglo cousins do. They will support the US in some issues (ie: they're in NATO, and they have 1,400 troops in Afghanistan), and oppose on others (ie: they spent most of the Cold War outside of NATO). In this case they don't give a shit that they're helping the US position by screwing with Snowden, his friends from Bolivia, and their allies Wikileaks. The US position is not totally irrelevant (if they'd caught Snowden you can bet they'd insist Obama owed them a favor), but if they didn't think they had a "compelling national interest" in supporting the US position they wouldn't do it.

      What they give a shit about is Wikileaks. Wikileaks is dedicated to extreme transparency. Extreme transparency is exactly the type of thing you want to avoid if you're France. They want their people to see French troops on the ground in Mali defending Malian freedom, they do not want the French people to know whether said troops have their hands full keeping so-called "black" Malians from massacring Tueregs. They want nobody in France to ever hear the word "Rwanda."

      If Snowden can be kept trapped in Moscow (where the information that gay people aren't insane is banned), while Assange is trapped in London (whether he's falsely accused of rape, or actually a rapist, is irrelevant to this discussion, he's still basically stuck in a cell), and Manning has 35 years in Leavenworth it's a lot easier for them to stop leaks in France. If Wikileaks gets Snowden out, OTOH, while Assange gets to be a Senator-in-exile, and the French-language media can be convinced that changing genders will allow Manning to avoid his 35 years...

      That is a nightmare for France.

  59. resend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He probably has a loose connection and all his packets have to be resent because the loose connection causes half of them to be scrambled.

  60. Re:Traceroute is to mainly fix routing problems to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not how traceroute works.

  61. Throttling in China is rampant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Especially in the coastal cities.
    Speed in Guangzhou and Shenzhen is appalling, about a tenth of what is available up in the Tibetan foothills.
    Difficult to understand how it could be the same country.

    1. Re:Throttling in China is rampant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Difficult to understand how it could be the same country.

      That's because it isn't.