|
|
Posted by db on 09/27/05 00:25
"FinnTroll" <yab@roll.uc> wrote in message
news:iw%Ze.34778$d5.189992@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "db" <@ .> skrev i meddelandet
> news:43385b4a$0$73599$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>>
>>><snip>... I understand an IP is being blocked if it can be found in the
>>>BendMX but what makes it "bad" and be rewarded a place in the "hall of
>>>shame", so to speak?
>>
>> Hmm, it's a pretty complicated thing to answer. Basically, the IP
>> addresses contained in the bendmx.dat file are addresses of computers
>> owned by companies employed by media companies to do whatever they can
>> get away with to disrupt the WinMX peer network. Most of the addresses
>> are computers that exploit the WinMX client by acting as secondaries
>> which connect into primary users on the WinMX peer network, upload a a
>> load of fake files names to the primary, and then basically sit on the
>> primary connection doing nothing. When a user initiates a search in their
>> WinMX client the search query gets broadcast around primary operators on
>> the network; those primaries receive the search queries and respond with
>> any matches they have stored. Thing to remember here is that primary
>> users store a list of all files shared by the primary user themself, and
>> more importantly, they store lists of all files shared by secondary users
>> that connect into the primary (primaries host secondary users). So what
>> happens is that, because the media companies run secondary clients that
>> hook into primaries, the primaries end up housing huge lists of fake
>> files (actually the files don't usually exist so it's just fake
>> information) so that whenever a user on the WinMX peer network runs a
>> search for a file they're trying to protect, such as "britney", the
>> primaries respond with tons of fake results to the initiator of the query
>> (the user that searched).
>
> hmm .... so if I understood all this, you mean that the fakers are those
> hiding among the searches showing all red ... like saying "11 in queue (0
> of 1 available) or is it that they hide within those green marks that says
> like 30 of 30 available users and when you click on the <+> sign all of
> the sudden it's red light all over, or is there another way to spot them,
> other than by trying to download from them, I mean?
They're usually apparent if you run a search and get thousands of strangely
similar results with users showing 50 of 80 slots available (green) and the
like. They're usually impossible to download from, too (connections just
time out). If you're new to the network you'll probably learn to recognise
them pretty quickly.
>>> I have been running WinMX now for a couple of hours ... no d/l, but a
>>> mere couple in the beginning to check things. Since then I have been
>>> watching the transfers window, trying to figure out what makes some
>>> u/l'ers never be connected, while others are being que'ed. While
>>> watching the u/l speed I notice that it doesn't matter much what type of
>>> connection speed they have ... speed ranges between 2,5K/s to around
>>> 30K/s. It makes me wonder if there's something I missed in the settings.
>>> I would expect a higher rate since I am on a 7/1 DSL and I have set the
>>> Queing to allow 4/2 at once.
>>
>> I could do with knowing whether you're running a primary or secondary
>> connection here (and any other details like firewall type, router, etc)
>> if you're having problems transferring files. Generally you can't gauge
>> the capability of a user's connection based on what connection type is
>> reported at all (56K, DSL, T1, etc).
>
> I run as a primary...
> firewall software is actually WinXP SP2's own, where I have only opened up
> the necessary tasks needed to share files. Otherwise there's only the
> routers "built in" firewall. I have set it to not respond to internet
> calls, other than those ports needed to connect to ex.number of P2P
> software that I use. For the moment there are three, DC++, Shareaza and
> also WinMX, but they're not running at the same time, nor from the same
> computer.
>
> The router, NetGear WGT624, hosts a intranet of total nine computers + one
> Mediaplayer, a D-Link DMS320, that are connected via two 10/100 switches -
> minus one computer that is connected wireless.
> My connection, as I said earlier, are DSL 7/1 using a D-Link DSL300-T for
> the internet connection. The regular down/up link stays around
> 6,8Mbps/0,8Mbps, while through the intranet there's no problems
> transfering files at 108Mbps, wire/wireless.
>
> Now, the numbers of computers are the real reason for my choice of
> broadband connection. I figured I would need a little more than 128K ISDN,
> so to speak, since there's also my kids using their computers to share
> stuff among their friends.
>
> Yeah well ... end of braggin' ... I use the standard ports on WinMX...
> 6699/TCP and 6257/UDP, and not using a proxy ... bandwith settings are set
> to 9Kb/s out and 13,5Kb/s in ... If I chose the default 7Kb/s - 10,5Kb/s
> doesn't change much ... as I am typing I have three u/l, one T1 at a speed
> of appr. 4,5K/s and two DSL on 25-30K/s... which sounds a bit odd
> considering the type of connection
>
> btw ... on the case of "timeouts" ... it seems that there's only timeouts
> on those who searches me for my "Creed" videos .. for the moment I only
> share different types of music videos (mpg/avi) ... no mp3's or DVD's ...
> I wonder, are those "timeouts" what you meant in the paragraph above
> talking about fakers?
If you mean that people trying to download those files from you occasionally
time out (as your client attempts to upload them), then no, it doesn't sound
like anything to do with the fakers. I wouldn't be too concerned about
occasional failed connection attempts (timeouts) for either upload or
download so long as the majority of transfers work fine.
>> You'll see the BadIPs attempting to connect very frequently as they
>> repeatedly attempt to connect into any primary user advertising the
>> capacity to host secondary users (this is automatically controlled by the
>> WinMX client software).
>>
>> If you operate a secondary type connection you'll probably rarely ever
>> see entries in the log file. The BadIP blocks are specifically for
>> primary users (though it has no negative impact against running it on
>> secondary).
>
> Ahhh... yeah, I see ... so generally speaking it would be better to
> connect as a secondary and avoid the BadIPs, but doing it one would loose
> in connectivity and risc being cast out by the ones running as primary
> users ... kinda smart if you think about it? Creating distrust and
> defensive actions among the sharers and thus slowly but surely "choke" the
> network...
Pro's and con's to being either primary or secondary really. Secondary
connections tend to be pretty unstable as they rely on being attached to a
primary for access to the network. If the primary goes offline for whatever
reason then your secondary client has to seek a new primary in order to
regain access to the network. Problem here is that any files you have
queued might lose their positions in the queue and be reset to the back, and
also all people in your upload queue will timeout. Secondaries use
virtually no bandwidth though comparred to a primary connection outside of
actual file transfers. Secondaries just use the primary they connect to as
a slave to run their searches and various other tasks.
Primaries don't suffer the same instability problem with being attached to
the network though, like secondaries, so are usually a lot more reliable.
They'll consume a portion of bandwidth for network tasks (the 'allocated
bandwidth' setting) as they receive, process and broadcast search queries to
other primaries on the WPN on behalf of all users of the network, and
various other tasks like managing queue status for secondaries (polling),
browsing shared file lists, messaging, etc.
"...but doing it one would loose in connectivity and risc being cast out by
the ones running as primary users" - not too sure what you mean here.
There's no reason you could be 'cast out' I don't think so long as you don't
join the RIAA or something. :)
I don't know if this will help but might be worth a look:
http://www.nodata.plus.com/wpn.html (shameless crappysite plug)
Gonna lie down for a bit now. :P
hth.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|