Talk:Sandvine/Archives/2014

Discussing Workarounds

Should we be discussing workarounds to the Sandvine product? Whilst it might be worthy of discussion, is it correct to have this on the page discussing a company? For example, whilst Windows Genuine Advantage discusses circumvention, it doesn't point directly to a solution, instead preferring "various internet sources". Ideas? Znx 00:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussing workarounds to a Comcast-specific is probably not in the scope of this article. If Sandvine's involvement is confirmed and this becomes a larger issue, it might be relevant to include reference/discussion to workarounds. Andareed 02:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

"Comcast has been using Sandvine technology to infringe on Network neutrality.[1]

The company specializes in bandwidth management network appliances that break up peer-to-peer connections by forging packet data in order to reduce ISPs' cost, and prioritize protocols adversely affected by jitter and latency, such as VoIP and online gaming which are viewed as beneficial by the ISP and degrading the performance on others, such as p2p file sharing or VoIP provided by the ISP's competition. The appliances use deep packet inspection to enforce application-aware policies."

206.221.251.212 23:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)I removed this from the page... not only is it unrelated to the category It's got no references... I couldn't find any official information to support that a Sandvine product specifically being designed to favour protocols or that being the sandvine 'speciality'

Forging Packet Data?

Does Sandvine really work by "forging packet data"? Sounds distinctly like bull$hit to me. 217.155.138.250 17:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, the Sandvine product is just like any other policy/DPI device... it's a toolbox to do ANYTHING a service provider wants to do to with it - like a really fancy router. Their pitch is that when they go in to a network, the overall network experience goes up for average network users becasue they can eliminate network congestion fairly. I am sure it has the ability to also completely block or severly shape traffic too or make the traffic get shaped by your router. Weather it can forge data traffic or not is beyond anything I've researched - is there reports of it forging data?? as a network device I could see it changing the packets header... anything is a guess though.

Yes. TCP packets with the RST flag set and the originating IP (and possibly window) are forged and delivered to both sides, closing the connection. --Neurophyre^(talk) 09:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If 66.38.201.61 is right, then isn't this Comcast's fault for using it improperly? 99.236.9.153 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally dont think there is fault in controlling network congestion by resetting a network connection which will re-establish where it left off providing the protocols expected behaviour is still met. You obviously cant do this to voip... but if knocking off a few bit torrent sessions means I can call 911 then all the better. The bit torrent protocol is designed to retry and users generally walk away from their downloads which can complete whenever... it's not intereactive. I work at a small ISP and I could see why larger ISPs would employ such technology. The internet was never designed for user to user traffic. It was designed arround a user connecting to a central server. (I was 66.38.201.61) 208.90.100.105 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias on this page

I find references attributed to TorrentFreak.com on this page to be biased and something that should be omitted from this source of reference. Speculation is of no value without evidence, and claims of illicit use and defrauding users originate (in my opinion) from the concept that the Comcast internet user can do anything they want to whatever degree they find acceptable and that they have been given permission by Comcast to do so. Their terms of service do not grant unlimited use (the most common complaint). Comcast must maintain standards, and Comcast users should show responsibility and discipline. For reference, I am a torrent user and have been suspended by Comcast in the past for excessive bandwidth usage. Mdh99 15:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I concure - lets keep it encyclopedia like and only have un-biassed facts.

TorrentFreak.com is one of the most popular p2p related news site. I believe this fact alone is good reason to have it included here. I understand you're defending Comcast. Good for you, but you're being very biased. If Comcast wanted to behave properly and honestly, it would simply suspend or cancel the heavy-traffic users, not sabotage and frustrate their web browsing. This kind of attitude only shows that Comcast's original intention was to eliminate, or greatly reduce, p2p traffic in a stealth way. Surely the problem isn't the overuse only, but overuse related to p2p (for Comcast synonym of piracy) traffic. It looks pretty obvious that behind this intrusive and idiot treatment lurks a lot of copyright owners concerned with their sacred property. I don't blame them. I only don't like the lack of openness. But openness means lost customers... 201.29.223.5 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If they suspend/cancel accounts they lose money. If they traffic-shape instead they get to keep all of their subscribers [until perhaps someone finds out]. Andareed 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Company History

The material in Company History section has absolutely nothing to do with, well, company history. It's just Comcast-induced bashing. Just noting this to whoever is willing to clean the section up. Alex Pankratov 04:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Too much focus on the "novel" technology!

The text under "Technology" is just too much "novel technology" that sounds just like a sales pitch! Read WP:NOTADVERTISING!

Sandvine's spam-source detection is novel in that it searches for 'sources of spam' rather than messages which are spam in content.

could be written without "novel" and comparing with others:

Sandvine's spam-source detection searches for 'sources of spam'.

Well, it could probably be written in another way, just without the sales pitch.

Algotr (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)