how much is an ip adress?

[Dangerous Dan]

ever since my bro and i got ourselves new comps we've been sharing the same connection, but now he's obsessed with downloading like 50 files at a time. When he does taht i can barely play sam :bawling: how much extra is it typically to buy another ip adress if you already have a connection set up?

[OUTLAWS WHOCARES]

I pay $6.95 per ip from my company.
Check with your to see if it can be done.
I use a 4 port hub

[Slice]

Um what do you mean? An ip address is not going to help you if you are on the same line. You need another connection.

[Dangerous Dan]

Slice, my bro's friend said it would regulate the traffic for incomming and outgoing files better than if it was all on the same one :wacko:

[OUTLAWS WHOCARES]

It will.
My roommate and I have been in same games many times with no problems.
Come to think of it I have had no problems with 2 ip's

[Slice]

Can't you regulate it with your routers networking software?

[OUTLAWS WHOCARES]

Originally posted by Slice@Apr 11 2003, 08:29 PM
Can't you regulate it with your routers networking software?
I am sure there is a way but for $6.95 a month why bother.

[JIMINATOR]

Originally posted by The Clanless Wonder@Apr 11 2003, 11:57 PM
ever since my bro and i got ourselves new comps we've been sharing the same connection, but now he's obsessed with downloading like 50 files at a time. When he does taht i can barely play sam :bawling: how much extra is it typically to buy another ip adress if you already have a connection set up?
sorry guy, an ip won't help. You are looking for a quality of service, a means of restricting bandwidth.
you can do that with a linux box, but I don't know of any way to do that with windows. (There is
a QoS function in XP, but it requires a QoS network). Look at it this way. your connection is a pipe.
An ip is the destination. Your bro may be streaming porn, sucking up a lot of the bandwidth. You
don't use that much, but what you do has to fit in the pipe with your brothers traffic. Not much
that you can do about it, except perhaps to get him to change his download patterns.
And yeah, I know that things must suck for you when I beat you in the hole :-)

[Dangerous Dan]

thx for the info JIM... looks like i'm gonna have a little "brotherly" talk with my bro then, lol

and btw, very good game in hole, and i wont use my bro's band width hoging as an excuse (although it's true), you played excellent and earned the vic :thumbs:

[JIMINATOR]

Originally posted by The Clanless Wonder@Apr 12 2003, 12:53 AM
thx for the info JIM... looks like i'm gonna have a little "brotherly" talk with my bro then, lol

and btw, very good game in hole, and i wont use my bro's band width hoging as an excuse (although it's true), you played excellent and earned the vic  :thumbs:
Yeah, well, I know about lag, when you aim and shoot and then the
person is somewhere else, plus damage was normal. Normally we
don't get second chances with you :-)
When I can do that on a regular level, then it will be something...

[Grimmy]

I know here with my cable connection, and having a router, I could pay like $5 extra a month, then each puter plugged into the router would have it's own bandwidth and not share it. That might be something to check into. Then your brother could download all he wants, and you should be able to play sam and not see anything. Not sure what connection you have there, but worth calling your ISP and asking them about it.

[JIMINATOR]

Originally posted by Grimmy@Apr 12 2003, 03:24 AM
I know here with my cable connection, and having a router, I could pay like $5 extra a month, then each puter plugged into the router would have it's own bandwidth and not share it. That might be something to check into. Then your brother could download all he wants, and you should be able to play sam and not see anything. Not sure what connection you have there, but worth calling your ISP and asking them about it.
True, call your ISP and ask if they have Quality of Service plan.
If they do, then you are in luck...

[ME BIGGD01]

well if you are using windows xp you can set the limit. do you use a router? if so you can just block the ports of the programs that he uses such as kazaa and other. or you can run a few commands to his system to reboot his system :devil:
let me know what os he has and i will pm you instructions on how to set limit.

real quick
run
gpedit.msc
computer configuration
admin templates
click on network and expand
clcik on qos and to the right window look for the setting and enable it and set bandwidth limit
by default xp holds 20% so enable it on yours and bring it down to 0

[Grimmy]

Originally posted by ME BIGGD01@Apr 11 2003, 11:28 PM
well if you are using windows xp you can set the limit. do you use a router? if so you can just block the ports of the programs that he uses such as kazaa and other. or you can run a few commands to his system to reboot his system :devil:
let me know what os he has and i will pm you instructions on how to set limit.

real quick
run
gpedit.msc
computer configuration
admin templates
click on network and expand
clcik on qos and to the right window look for the setting and enable it and set bandwidth limit
by default xp holds 20% so enable it on yours and bring it down to 0
WOW, Bigg you know your stuff man! :thumbs:

I checked mine, becuase I have 2 puters connected to a router. My settings aren't configured when I go into that. Should I configure them, or no?? What would be best for maximum performance?

[JIMINATOR]

Originally posted by ME BIGGD01@Apr 12 2003, 04:28 AM
well if you are using windows xp you can set the limit. do you use a router? if so you can just block the ports of the programs that he uses such as kazaa and other. or you can run a few commands to his system to reboot his system :devil:
let me know what os he has and i will pm you instructions on how to set limit.

real quick
run
gpedit.msc
computer configuration
admin templates
click on network and expand
clcik on qos and to the right window look for the setting and enable it and set bandwidth limit
by default xp holds 20% so enable it on yours and bring it down to 0
Yeah, that only applies to QoS networks (with NT Server as the router).
There have been tests run on where the settings were changed, and
it did not make a difference in bandwidth used...

[ME BIGGD01]

xp will set it ip if you right click on network properties and see qos there it is enabled. i guess you all have to test it out for yourself to see if it is an improvement. as mentioned xp holds back 20 % and here is the explanation to the setting
Determines the percentage of connection bandwidth that the system can reserve. This value limits the combined bandwidth reservations of all programs running on the system.

By default, the Packet Scheduler limits the system to 20 percent of the bandwidth of a connection, but you can use this setting to override the default.

If you enable this setting, you can use the "Bandwidth limit" box to adjust the amount of bandwidth the system can reserve.

If you disable this setting or do not configure it, the system uses the default value of 20 percent of the connection.

Important: If a bandwidth limit is set for a particular network adapter in the registry, this setting is ignored when configuring that network adapter

[ME BIGGD01]

QoS assigns numeric priority values to each packet traveling over a network. Packets from mission critical network applications are given a higher priority than the general applications, which are given a higher priority than Bob from HR downloading the latest video's from the Net.


QoS then factors in the size of the packet and the load on the network (if the network is congested) to determine which packet should be sent first. The part of QoS that the XP tweakers are worried about is how QoS allocates and reserves bandwidth for certain critical streams (called RSVP, or Resource ReSerVation Protocol). Their assertion is that QoS, by default, reserves 20 percent of the XP system's bandwidth in case it needs it for a mission critical application.




The truth is that your XP machine needs to be running on a QoS-enabled network and run QoS-enabled applications for it to reserve any available bandwidth. Further, mission critical applications do not reserve portions of bandwidth "in case" they need them, they only reserve a portion prior to transmission and release it afterward.


copied and pasted

does not have to be nt 4 based as xp has it's own xpqos protocol as if your network was xp based without server but really no benefit really seen in the tweak.

[Fantum309]

WOW, what did he say? :WTF:

[Aries]

Originally posted by Fantum309@Apr 12 2003, 08:39 AM
WOW, what did he say? :WTF:
:blink: I need to learn :bandhead:

[Slice]

Originally posted by Grimmy@Apr 11 2003, 11:24 PM
I know here with my cable connection, and having a router, I could pay like $5 extra a month, then each puter plugged into the router would have it's own bandwidth and not share it. That might be something to check into. Then your brother could download all he wants, and you should be able to play sam and not see anything. Not sure what connection you have there, but worth calling your ISP and asking them about it.
I don't see how that is possible. Let's say your cable is capable of handling 1.5mbps up and down. If you add an ip address all you are doing is sharing that 1.5 between the addresses. It is like this, if you order a T1 deticated circuit you usually get a block of 5 ip addresses with it. Just because you can assign different boxes a static number doesn't mean that they each have a 1.5 up and down. That circuit is split amongst them. It is like Jim said, imagine a 1/2 inch water pipe, now you put a T on that pipe well the amount of water is going to get divided in half. The bandwidth won't increase because it is still only a 1/2 inch pipe.

When wireless beaming technology (not 802.11) comes out, then I can see them being able to allow more bandwidth per connection because it will have a much larger bandwidth capability.

There are also routers out now that allow you to connect to seperate dsl lines in to it and allows your computer to use them as one. So if you had 2 dsl accounts of 1.5mbps in to the router, you then will be running at 3mbps. (of course only if you have great service will you achieve such speeds)

[JIMINATOR]

Originally posted by Slice@Apr 12 2003, 07:54 PM
I don't see how that is possible. Let's say your cable is capable of handling 1.5mbps up and down. If you add an ip address all you are doing is sharing that 1.5 between the addresses. It is like this, if you order a T1 deticated circuit you usually get a block of 5 ip addresses with it. Just because you can assign different boxes a static number doesn't mean that they each have a 1.5 up and down. That circuit is split amongst them. It is like Jim said, imagine a 1/2 inch water pipe, now you put a T on that pipe well the amount of water is going to get divided in half. The bandwidth won't increase because it is still only a 1/2 inch pipe.

When wireless beaming technology (not 802.11) comes out, then I can see them being able to allow more bandwidth per connection because it will have a much larger bandwidth capability.

There are also routers out now that allow you to connect to seperate dsl lines in to it and allows your computer to use them as one. So if you had 2 dsl accounts of 1.5mbps in to the router, you then will be running at 3mbps. (of course only if you have great service will you achieve such speeds)
True, but some cable providers may have QoS offerings. For instance, cable will usually
allocate 3 channels for isp traffic, for 35-42 mbs throughput that has to be shared amongst
all subscribers in an area. There have been various unlock or firmware hacks to bypass the
2mb/200k limitations set in the routers. In theory an isp can offer other types of services
using the standard device...

[JIMINATOR]

Originally posted by ME BIGGD01@Apr 12 2003, 07:11 AM
xp will set it ip if you right click on network properties and see qos there it is enabled. i guess you all have to test it out for yourself to see if it is an improvement. as mentioned xp holds back 20 % and here is the explanation to the setting
Determines the percentage of connection bandwidth that the system can reserve. This value limits the combined bandwidth reservations of all programs running on the system.


[SNIP]
umm, my head hurts after looking at that. I stopped after getting an A+ and
also network certification. I never delved deep into the microsoft/xp stuff.
Based on what you posted, it looks like it could maybe possibly work if it
is configured correctly. So if clanless can set up the limitation on his brothers
system, then he should be clear. By default tho, there is no limitation,
otherwise all of the bandwidth tests you run would be off by 20%

[Slice]

Originally posted by JIMINATOR+Apr 12 2003, 11:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JIMINATOR @ Apr 12 2003, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Slice@Apr 12 2003, 07:54 PM
I don&#39;t see how that is possible.&nbsp; Let&#39;s say your cable is capable of handling 1.5mbps up and down.&nbsp; If you add an ip address all you are doing is sharing that 1.5 between the addresses.&nbsp; It is like this, if you order a T1 deticated circuit you usually get a block of 5 ip addresses with it.&nbsp; Just because you can assign different boxes a static number doesn&#39;t mean that they each have a 1.5 up and down.&nbsp; That circuit is split amongst them.&nbsp; It is like Jim said, imagine a 1/2 inch water pipe,&nbsp; now you put a T on that pipe well the amount of water is going to get divided in half.&nbsp; The bandwidth won&#39;t increase because it is still only a 1/2 inch pipe.&nbsp;

When wireless beaming technology (not 802.11) comes out, then I can see them being able to allow more bandwidth per connection because it will have a much larger bandwidth capability.&nbsp;

There are also routers out now that allow you to connect to seperate dsl lines in to it and allows your computer to use them as one.&nbsp; So if you had 2 dsl accounts of 1.5mbps in to the router, you then will be running at 3mbps.&nbsp; (of course only if you have great service will you achieve such speeds)
True, but some cable providers may have QoS offerings. For instance, cable will usually
allocate 3 channels for isp traffic, for 35-42 mbs throughput that has to be shared amongst
all subscribers in an area. There have been various unlock or firmware hacks to bypass the
2mb/200k limitations set in the routers. In theory an isp can offer other types of services
using the standard device... [/b][/quote]
But do you think that the line is capable of the speed? I mean a T1 actually uses 2 pair of copper and maxes out at 1.5mbps. So I guess the question is how much bandwidth is the one cable line capable of handling?

[JIMINATOR]

Originally posted by Slice+Apr 13 2003, 03:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Slice @ Apr 13 2003, 03:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -JIMINATOR@Apr 12 2003, 11:02 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Slice@Apr 12 2003, 07:54 PM
I don&#39;t see how that is possible.* Let&#39;s say your cable is capable of handling 1.5mbps up and down.* If you add an ip address all you are doing is sharing that 1.5 between the addresses.* It is like this, if you order a T1 deticated circuit you usually get a block of 5 ip addresses with it.* Just because you can assign different boxes a static number doesn&#39;t mean that they each have a 1.5 up and down.* That circuit is split amongst them.* It is like Jim said, imagine a 1/2 inch water pipe,* now you put a T on that pipe well the amount of water is going to get divided in half.* The bandwidth won&#39;t increase because it is still only a 1/2 inch pipe.*

When wireless beaming technology (not 802.11) comes out, then I can see them being able to allow more bandwidth per connection because it will have a much larger bandwidth capability.*

There are also routers out now that allow you to connect to seperate dsl lines in to it and allows your computer to use them as one.* So if you had 2 dsl accounts of 1.5mbps in to the router, you then will be running at 3mbps.* (of course only if you have great service will you achieve such speeds)
True, but some cable providers may have QoS offerings. For instance, cable will usually
allocate 3 channels for isp traffic, for 35-42 mbs throughput that has to be shared amongst
all subscribers in an area. There have been various unlock or firmware hacks to bypass the
2mb/200k limitations set in the routers. In theory an isp can offer other types of services
using the standard device...
But do you think that the line is capable of the speed? I mean a T1 actually uses 2 pair of copper and maxes out at 1.5mbps. So I guess the question is how much bandwidth is the one cable line capable of handling? [/b][/quote]
Oh, well that isn&#39;t an issue with digital cable. Cable has totally different requirements
than twisted pair. Some providers may offer 200 digital channels + music + isp service
(and possibly HDTV). That is a ton of bandwidth all riding on coax cable. Imagine how
much bandwidth it takes to view a fullscreen video. Multiply that by 3, and you have
the channels set up for isp traffic, which is easy with the cable upgrades that have
been happening the past few years. For the isp side,
all the cable lines terminate at a head. It serves the entire neighborhood, and usually a
T3 will connect it to the internet. As capacity is used, they will install additional heads
to support the added subscribers (in theory).
Twisted pair assumes one line that runs to a central office or a remote. Most houses
will have from 2 to 8 available sets. There are a lot more limitations as to what
can be done with twisted pair as compared to cable, that&#39;s why a lot of people
cannot get dsl, and dsl will degrade past 12000&#39; and has a max of 18000&#39;. (T1 is
16000&#39; but no degradation...)

[Slice]

Um I am not so sure on your T1 calculation, and um I think that digital cable no doubt is fast but eventually taps out because the cable programing eats up the majority of the bandwidth. I have digital cable in my house but they do not offer high speed internet on the lines as of yet. :rolleyes:

[ME BIGGD01]

as for most cable companies they provide a big enough pipe to provide enough bandwidth. if they just made you pay for an ip address sharing the same bandwidth than thats a ripp off and suggest justa router. but most cable companies are a bunch of monopolistic holes that will ripp you aff anyway they can

[Sirc]

I haven&#39;t read the whole thread, but most of it. The inital problem was that one user was doing some major downloading. Even on DSL Sifi and I can both be playing a game online without much problem. When we had cable internet it wasn&#39;t a problem at all. But either way, if one of us decided to download something from a server that could feed very fast, the downloading computer always hogged the bandwith. Is there a way to limits each user&#39;s slice of the pie on a home network?

[Slice]

Well gameplay hardly uses that much bandwidth anyways, only about 50-70kbps depending on the game. I think that Sam sucks so bad netcode wise that we tend to compare everything to it. In reality a tight netcode with a real online game handles itself well. I mean come on think about Sam, you run your own server with no one in it, and you already have almost a 30ms ping on it. That is the biggest laugh in the world&#33; Play a game with tight netcode and you will be like next to 0 ping on your own server. (the way it is supposed to be)

[Sirc]

Well no, it doesn&#39;t seem to matter. UT2k3, Q3, AVP2. They all go to hell when someone else in our house starts a big download. :WTF:

[Slice]

I am not surprised because current technology sucks&#33; So your broadband provider claims one thing but you actually get another. Man fiber is coming, 100MB per household, for under &#036;100 per month. Sign me up man&#33; :D They have it in Japan for like &#036;40 per month already. What it comes down to is company spending.

[Sirc]

Originally posted by Slice@Apr 13 2003, 12:46 AM
I am not surprised because current technology sucks&#33; So your broadband provider claims one thing but you actually get another. Man fiber is coming, 100MB per household, for under &#036;100 per month. Sign me up man&#33; :D They have it in Japan for like &#036;40 per month already. What it comes down to is company spending.
Well, again, no. We get the upload/download speeds that our provider told us we would have. What I&#39;m saying is, that on our intranet at home there is no regulation. It&#39;s not the provider&#39;s responsibility to determine how the bandwidth allocation is managed on our side of the modem. My question is - how can we cap individual download speeds on our home network so that no one person can hog all the bandwidth?

[ME BIGGD01]

i would suggest just kicking your brothers ass for screwing you :P j/k--

after further investigation even changing the qos on a standard xp installation with a standard router it will not help you in this situation. i can explain why but really do not feel like typing so much. reading the purposes and benefits---do not bother.


i would thing that most cable company&#39;s have fiber running by now so the speed should be fine if you get another cable modem. if it only costs you 10 dollars a month--go for it. thats 1 lunch for me out of the week. a seperate modem should give you what you need.

if everyone on your block as cable sevrice than you will definately get a bit of a slowdown.

[Dangerous Dan]

well, my bro&#39;s agreed to only download like 10 files max at a time, it shoudl be good from now on :)

thx for the insite BIGG and everyone else :)

[JIMINATOR]

In short, I don&#39;t think it is possible.
You can take a look here about the QoS feature in xp
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/windows...3365585,00.html (http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/windowstips/story/0,24330,3365585,00.html)
They don&#39;t believe it is possible.
But you can look at this article:
http://www.tweakxp.com/tweakxp/display.asp?id=282
and perhaps set up QoS on the box doing downloads
the problem is that it only works for QoS aware programs, ie, if it was a
feature supported by the tcp stack, it would work for everything,
otherwise it will depend on the application you are running
QoS is implemented in IPv32, but who knows when that will really be out and available
It can be done if you are using a linux box for a router.
I had an associate that was crowing about how well his setup works with QoS enabled
anyway, it may be worth a try

[ME BIGGD01]

thats what i came up with jim and also i copied and pasted from one of those articles. it&#39;s only for qos apps.


jim are you familiar with linux? if so which version do you use and what hardware do you use in your system. i bought suse about a yr ago and really nebver got into it.

version 8.0 suse pro

any suggestions with it?

[JIMINATOR]

Originally posted by ME BIGGD01@Apr 13 2003, 07:03 AM
thats what i came up with jim and also i copied and pasted from one of those articles. it&#39;s only for qos apps.


jim are you familiar with linux? if so which version do you use and what hardware do you use in your system. i bought suse about a yr ago and really nebver got into it.

version 8.0 suse pro

any suggestions with it?
I have tried different flavors, but I usually use mandrake, it is pretty easy to install, and a lot of stuff has been configured with it. suse also is a good product, very nicely done. I would not bother with an old copy (there have been a lot of improvements), just download and burn the latest from one of the ftp sites. a lot of my friends like debian, and lindows is based on it. i installed it but found it hard to configure. slackware is also supposed to be really good. for my box, i have a celeron 533 all in one pc. you don&#39;t need much for linux. i used to have it set up to where the only connections to it were a powercord & an ethernet cable, and that would work really well, I would just ssh into it when I needed it. KVM switches have become really cheap though, I recently bought one for &#036;50 with cables, and I use it to switch between my windows and the linux box, and it works nicely. The question is, what do you want to do with your linux box? Obviously it is nice to have an instant webserver, ftp server, mail server, and you can even run a message board with the same software they use here. They are awesome in that you can access the box from anywhere you can get an internet connection. They also work well as a router & a firewall. At one point I was running a script that would suck down a set of webpages, parse the data and upload the results to another webpage. The windows command prompt and default utilities suck compared to what you can do in linux.
The problems with it are obviously that it can be hard to configure and hard to learn how to do things. The desktop is nice, and it can run some windows apps, and play most videos, and handle office apps, but a lot of stuff is going to be missing compared to what you can do in windows. If you have a spare box though, and get a kvm switch, then it can be a great learning tool.