RE: Blocked Port Detection?

Not ALL satellite dishes are one way :)  

There's a two way DirecPC plan (Which we had, and used for a good year -
maybe two)

At any rate, 5 or so people share a common uplink capacity of 128k.  So,
theoretically, if the other 4 weren't on, you'd get that high.  (Never
saw it that high though)

At any rate, dial up was usually faster than satellite for uploads -
esp. ftp uploads as a 250ms connection is much preferable of an
800-1000ms connection on small files.

This is an old message.  It took you a while to read this :)

I'm still interested in knowing if there's a good way to find out what
outgoing ports are blocked by ISP.  (Incoming is easy enough to check
via grc or some equivalent)

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Wright [mailto:fw@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:33 PM
To: m0n0wall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Blocked Port Detection?


On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Brandon Holland wrote:

> Satellite (through various companies)
> Problem: Latency - 800-2000ms and Upload bandwidth: for DirecPC -
> advertised was 128k, real world, 22k.  (Uploading a website is
literally
> better on dialup)

How could they possibly get 128K upstream?  I believe the satellite path
is downstream only, so the upstream has to be dialup.  Or is that just
an
inflated figure based on some really optimistic expectations of
compression?

The latency could be substantially improved if they had a hack to send
small downstream packets via the dialup and large ones via the
satellite.  
Since this would apply to ACKs as well, it might improve the upstream
speed, which may be limited more by latency than by bandwidth unless the
receiving site has a large socket buffer *and* both ends support the
"long
fat pipe" extensions to TCP.

                                        Fred Wright