
Microsoft RickRolls Wi-Fi leechers at TechEd - shrikant
http://www.techedbackstage.net/2010/02/18/never-gonna-give-you-up/
======
bensummers
Summary: BitTorrent users used up lots of space in the NAT port table in
Windows NT. Because there are only 64k ports available, this is a big problem
if more than a couple of users are using BitTorrent.

Interestingly, they did not not see this as a flaw in the Windows kernel. You
can get a data structure which allows 2^48 concurrent connections by NAT on a
single IP address if you map based on (destination IP address,port) rather
than just (port).

OpenBSD does this, to avoid the very problem these Microsoft people solved by
complex tools and a rick roll.

~~~
stcredzero
And who needs more disk partitions than there are letters in the alphabet,
anyways? Kids these days! Get Off of My Lawn!

~~~
sid0
Oh come on, you're using a Win9x argument in 2010? :)

~~~
stcredzero
Uh, what do you think I'm arguing about? I'm drawing a parallel between a
Microsoft oversight dating from the DOS days and the current oversight with
port numbers.

But if you think I'm taking a _position_ , please explain. (I'm reminded of
Herman Melville reacting to various academic's analysis of symbolism in Moby
Dick. Something to the effect that _he_ didn't know that stuff was in there!)
Unjustified projection of fictional intention is just as cheap as putting
words into another's mouth.

~~~
pmjordan
FWIW: All Desktop/Server versions of Windows since Windows 2000 (except WinMe)
support arbitrary directory-based mount points.

~~~
stcredzero
I was about to do this, actually, so I can have a 40GB "system" partition and
put my "data" partition in "My Documents." But I still get the joy of seeing
my "C:" drive in XP.

------
andrewcooke
did they ask people to stop? i read through the text and couldn't see that
mentioned, which struck me as odd. i'm pretty sure that it wouldn't have
stopped everyone, but to not ask people first seems a bit misguided to me.

[edit: my comment on that page asking about this hasn't been answered, but
there's a reply to another comment saying "people were approached" that refers
to the previous post - [http://www.techedbackstage.net/2010/02/17/bittorrent-
traffic...](http://www.techedbackstage.net/2010/02/17/bittorrent-traffic-
shaping-and-trusting-users/) \- that does describe in more detail what
happened. and there's still no description of a general announcement.

i do understand their frustration, but to take an approach like this _without_
any announcement is going to encourage some people to "fight back". a
sympathetic announcement with an explanation would have got the majority of
users "on their side", producing peer pressure and setting expectations that
would reduce the amount of conflict. not doing so comes across as passive
aggressive and encourages an "arms race"]

~~~
noonespecial
I think that if you find yourself banned, and then _change your MAC_ to get
back on the network to continue the abuse, that constitutes being asked to
stop.

~~~
andrewcooke
i've edited my comments to make it clearer that this isn't about whether or
not people understood why they were being blocked, but about social
management.

------
fragmede
_software engineers as network admins has some benefits_

I'd hope a competent network admin would have seen this (bit torrent abuse and
nat port exhaustion) coming from miles and miles away.

------
pyre
> _RRAS, we found, only uses the machine base IP address for the outside of
> the NAT. It will not use additional IP addresses in the public address pool,
> no matter how many IP addresses are in that pool._

<facepalm> _Why_ exactly did they gloss over this as if it was no big deal?
</facepalm>

The way that I see it they should either:

1) Fix RRAS to use all IPs in the public address pool.

2) Fix ipnat.sys to use a lookup table that keys on
external_destination_ip+port rather than just port.

3) Make an announcement that several users are abusing the network with
excessive BitTorrent usage which is taxing the NAT. State that BitTorrent
users will be kicked from the network if the situation does not improve.

4) Make an announcement asking BitTorrent users to limit the total number of
ports their client is using. Most BitTorrent clients (even rtorrent) allow you
to limit the number of connections on a global or per-torrent basis. There
really is no reason that one needs to have upwards of 800 (or even 2500) ports
at a given time.

In general, #1 and #2 should be done _anyways_ regardless of how they solved
the immediate situation at the conference.

------
hannibalhorn
Given the lack of free or even affordable WiFi in Australia, I'm not surprised
that people would leech when given the opportunity. During my travels there
last year I found very little that didn't cost $4/hr, outside of a pittance
available for free at McDonald's.

Certainly, after paying to attend the conference I'd feel entitled to some
bandwidth as well. If the network is using a poor NAT implementation, that's
negligent network planning and the admins should shoulder the blame instead of
screwing with the users.

------
po
"The next morning we found that ipnat.sys developer (being in India) suffered
all sorts of Internet and power problems overnight and was unable to finish
the utility. It was a new day when we received this news so we completed the
utility ourselves…"

I've heard that one before! (Not that they don't actually have those problems
in India)

------
GeneralMaximus
If Google does it, it's cute. If Microsoft does it, it's OMGOMGOMG MONOPOLY
EVIL LOL DEATH!!1!

Why the snarky comments, HNers?

~~~
decode
Could you update your comment with a link to the HN article where we called it
cute when Google couldn't figure out how to manage its WiFi network and
rickrolled its users? I can't find it at the moment.

Pointing out where anyone called Microsoft evil or a monopoly on this page
would be helpful as well.

