running game servers on @home

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Tue May 01, 2001 10:07 am

This is just a question so please don't get too mad at me for asking! I'm on comcast@home. Can I legally be the host of a Quake3 game server according to the EULA spelled out by @home or is this prohibited also?

just wondering!

cyberskye · Post by **cyberskye** » Tue May 01, 2001 10:55 am

The only reason poeple would get mad is because:

a: it's posted as a link off the home page of your own isp. Some might think it would be easier for you to look it up than to post the question here.

b: you will be using some readers bandwidth to play your game (mine included).

The answer to your question is NO you cannot host servers of any kind. They scan for open ports all the time in the DC area comcast@home. If you are elsewhere it may not be the case now but will be soon.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Tue May 01, 2001 11:23 am

DID IQ's just drop sharply? Don't be a prick...that's why I posed my question in the way that I did in the first place. Of course I've read the AUP...You may not run a server in connection with the @Home residential service, nor may you provide network services to others via the @Home residential service. The @Home residential service includes personal Webspace accounts for publishing personal Web pages. Examples of prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, running servers for mail, http, ftp, irc, and dhcp, and multi-user interactive forums. For information about @Work products for commercial or network services purposes, including commercial-grade remote LAN access, please see http://work.home.net.

but it doesn't explicitly define UDP as being illegal or in violation. Yes, I understand English but is hosting a game on your own PC, not a server mind you, in violation? If you are connected to only one other person, like another @home user, is that in violation?

I don't know why I even F*%^&**G bothered to ask when all you get is attacks for asking questions on subjects that are not clearly defined!
So I guess it is ok then for me to have everyone on my home network playing Q3 on whatever servers we like on the net...as long as we don't host one ourselves right? How much bandwidth is that eating up compared to the other way?

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Tue May 01, 2001 11:32 am

The key words in the AUP which you quoted are "You may not run a server in connection with the @Home residential service, nor may you provide network services to others via the @Home residential service."

Running a gaming server means you are both a)running a server, and b)providing network services to others.

Gaming servers add tons of traffic to a network. Although the packets used are very small in size, they are in rapid succession, and really bog things down.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Tue May 01, 2001 11:41 am

Thanks cat for answering my question!

Thats all I wanted to know because I have NEVER tried it and didn't want to if it were a violation of the AUP.

So basically you can connect to anything and host nothing right?

Pikap39 · Post by **Pikap39** » Tue May 01, 2001 2:24 pm

look guys these arguments are pointless. Ive been with @home going on 5 1/2 years and they have never come down on me for hosting a game of ages or quake. On the other hand I've never left ethier game up on an open server. The name of the game is SHARE. If you abuse it you loose it and get to go back to dial up. Im not yelling at anyone but these ranting posts about servers are pointles. Cant we all just get along?

phsykotik · Post by **phsykotik** » Tue May 01, 2001 2:57 pm

FYI:
Although they say you may not run a game server... In the Sac. area here they scan for Telnet and Mail servers only , and all scans come from 'authorized.scan.custops.home.net' (something like that), and it is easy to use 'Black Ice Defender' to drop all [ackets form that host, effectively allowing you to run whatever youd like on any ports and never be discovered. I dont even want to here some moron argue this either since it works, Ive seen it done a meeeeellliioonn times.

-peace

rodrod5 · Post by **rodrod5** » Tue May 01, 2001 3:06 pm

technically it is aginst the aup to serve a game but just as the post before me says @Home does not really look for this particular violation if at all.. but also as said before you do share band width on cable and the upload is a bandwidth hog compared to downloads that is y @Home frowns on servers but if you serve a small game for short times i do not believe you would have a problem and your neighbors would not be effected . There are plenty of ways @Home can see what is going on and find abuse but if you are polite to others they will probably never know.. Besides you get one warning at least so just do your thing dont get greedy respectfully share your bandwidth and enjoy your game as your neighbors enjoy their video ect.. have a nice day

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Tue May 01, 2001 3:37 pm

It's against the rules, they may never find you, they may only scan for web servers, the situation varies from ISP to ISP. I've seen ISP's that count your bytes, some that don't scan at all, never have, may in the future, may not.

Just like driving, some people exceed 65 MPH, but some highways have cops all over them with speedtraps, others don't, or occasionally do. I drive on the road every day traveling from network to network, and it's been told that I exceed the speedlimit sometimes. If I do, I know I may get a ticket. It's a gamble.

Same thing applies here. The persons ISP may or may not scan your ports, or count your network traffice, or only look for certain types of traffic.

It's been told that I run a game server 24/7 from my house. If it were true, would my ISP find it? Dunno.

I'm gonna go find some wood to knock on...

bkuhl · Post by **bkuhl** » Tue May 01, 2001 4:26 pm

This policy is not designed to stop people from running the occasional servers that a friend or two connects to. Someone said, it is for those that try and run 24x7 gaming servers. Those are the people they are trying to prevent.
There is a bunch of people that constantly bitch about how you are going to steal their bandwidth. This is ridiculous! First, there are caps in place. You will never use more bandwidth then the cap allows! Second, WTF do you mean that game packets are worse then normal packets? Did @Home install some Quality of Service (QOS) pieces lately? A packet, is a packet. @Home doesn't pass more packets then your cap allows, or pass them faster, or assign them more bandwidth because they are game packets!
Furthermore, when did it become your bandwidth and not his? He pays the same $$ each month for that measly 120 kpbs up. He has as much right to use it as you do. Because you use it sending files to your web server or e-mail attachments to friends and he doesn't he deserves your wrath!?
They are looking for abusers, not users. Be smart, if you think your doing something unfair you might be. But running a game for a few friends NOW and THEN, is NOT going to bring @Home to it's knees. If you start running it more then not, well......

pimptrizkit · Post by **pimptrizkit** » Tue May 01, 2001 4:32 pm

well i have ran a server but i didn't read any thing but i only ran it when i played the game late at night "counter strike" but it gave me 4000 pings to my own server so i said screw it cuz i wanted to play too
i mean how many of us have ran servers of some sort....who here has napster? bearshare? come on any type of file sharing soft wear? yea thats what i thought those programs turn ur comp into a small server
so if you run any lil program and you allow people to down load off of you then shut your trap cuz legaly your breaking the rules and it really only seems that they do not want you to run a mail server or a web server and ftp and if somebody really wanted to get a big server going then they can purches a good line or get @work but till then just dont run the web servers and stuff like that i really dotn think a gaming server will hurt many people if it is only up 1 or 2 nights a week and is up past nine and only up an hour or so do you?

great point their BKuhl !!!!!!

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: pimptrizkit ]

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Tue May 01, 2001 6:03 pm

[quote]Originally posted by BKuhl:
This policy is not designed to stop people from running the occasional servers that a friend or two connects to.

True..a part time game server for a few hours can generally be said not to attract an ISPs attention. Liken it to my analogy of driving past the speed limit. If you choose to puch it down a short stretch of back road for a few minutes, I doubt you'll get caught by the cops. But liken running your server 24/7 to driving across the state going as fast as you can, chances are, you are more likely to be caught.

Second, WTF do you mean that game packets are worse then normal packets? Did @Home install some Quality of Service (QOS) pieces lately? A packet, is a packet. @Home doesn't pass more packets then your cap allows, or pass them faster, or assign them more bandwidth because they are game packets!

Actually there isn't much out there that will put more demands on a network than running a game server will. A game server will flood the available bandwidth more constantly than just about anything out there. Yes they are wee tiny packets, but there are incredible amounts of them, in a continuous stream. You cannot compare to a web server which gets a few hits now and then, and sits idle most of the time, similar to an FTP server, even a mail server. Or even take a database server like SQL, it gets more use, but the bandwidth isn't as constant as a game server. Lets take this analogy...which highway would you rather try to cross by foot, one which a few semi trailers drive down once every few minutes, perhaps 3 or 4 in a row drafting each other (liken this to a web server), or one which has a constant stream of mopeds driving on all 4 lanes 3 feet apart (liken to a game server).

bkuhl · Post by **bkuhl** » Tue May 01, 2001 9:04 pm

A game server, telnet server, mail server, Real Media server, HTTP, or FTP server. Don't matter. Not many @Home users are sending more then 120 kbps to the network. If you know of a way, a lot of people will be interested.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Tue May 01, 2001 9:36 pm

you can run a game server as long as it isn't 24/7

if like for an hour you fire it up to play it's ok, they won't get ya for taht, it's only if it's left on all day running a full time server etc....

but still, why chance it?

g-c0de · Post by **g-c0de** » Tue May 01, 2001 9:56 pm

well, in my area @home doesnt scan ports too high, when they port scan my box it doesnt even get up to the halflife gaming port 27015

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: G-C0DE ]

bkuhl · Post by **bkuhl** » Tue May 01, 2001 11:11 pm

Why chance it? Maybe because you want to use your broadband connection for why you bought it -- to do new\different\exciting things. If you limit it web browsing and just downloading files, it is quite boring. We spend this extra money (double dialup or more at times) because it gives us freedom to do things.
If you take their AUP's to the exact word, what can you really do? You can't set your machine up so YOU can access it remotely, share your files with friends, run Napster, host a game, or use too much bandwidth based on their decisions. High speed access should be different then dialup. It should be opening up NEW possibilities, not make the old ones occur faster.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Tue May 01, 2001 11:28 pm

AMEN!!!!!

McKinley · Post by **McKinley** » Tue May 01, 2001 11:50 pm

hmm... just wonder something. What's the big deal about hosting servers? I mean, it's not like they can exceed their given bandwidth. For example, if you are capped at 50k... you are entitled to use it. Running a gaming server will not use over 50k and "HOG" other people's bandwidth. I don't see the logic in the arugment that running servers "hogs" other people's bandwidth.

Enlighten me

rodrod5 · Post by **rodrod5** » Wed May 02, 2001 12:04 am

http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/?clkd=iwm#Asymmetry

see this link McKinley

[ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: rodrod5 ]

fredra · Post by **fredra** » Wed May 02, 2001 12:56 am

Hi uod
I just saw another thread on this subject....I don't know if it will help. http://forums.speedguide.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=012799

Just thought I would pass it on ...ok

bkuhl · Post by **bkuhl** » Wed May 02, 2001 1:16 am

What's the big deal about hosting servers? I mean, it's not like they can exceed their given bandwidth. For example, if you are capped at 50k... you are entitled to use it. Running a gaming server will not use over 50k and "HOG" other people's bandwidth. I don't see the logic in the arugment that running servers "hogs" other people's bandwidth.
Enlighten me

My point exactly.....
And RodRod, I know that the bandwidth is not symetrical. That is why you are capped! To prevent you from sucking all the bandwidth. Furthermore, a game server really doesn't use that much bandwidth. Nor does a telnet, if you want to remotely access your machines, but that is also prohibited.

I did some poking in the cable Usenet newsgroups and found this interesting quote from John Navas:

The cable plant in fact supports adequate upstream to downstream capacity,
a ratio that is far higher than the cap ratio that has been imposed by
most cable Internet providers. This alone demolishes the contention that
upstream capacity is a real problem. Check the specs.

There is no reason for them to be as restrictive as they are!

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Wed May 02, 2001 7:47 am

I'm not trying to get the message across that personally I'm against running gaming servers. It's been said that I run a few. Most of my servers are hanging off an OC-3 at my ISP, but from my house...well...it's been known to happen. So please don't argue against ME why you can't run servers. A), I believe in being able to use ones available bandwidth. B) I'm on DSL, not cable, so you can run all you want and not cut into my performance.

Now, I still have to go back and enlighten on bandwidth and how server impact the use of it. Say you have a 128 up cap. Envision your use of that bandwidth with some sort of flow meter, similar to a tachometer on a car. A web server or FTP server or mail server will mostly have that tachometer sitting just above idle, with occasional bursts up into the mid range, and a rare burst towards the redline. A game server will have that needle up into the yellow zone all the time, even into the redline. A game server that occasionally lets 1 or 2 players in...no, but most game server admins want their server to be popular, and will find out what the max amount of people that server will let in on it's bandwidth to play well. A game server will normally tax and utilize all available bandwidth usage. They have that much constant traffic.

As to the caps ensuring that if someone maxes their available bandwidth and does not cut into others performance....that is baloney. It is especially baloney with how cable is designed. The cables neighborhood nodes, simplified, and similar to subnetted workgroups on a large network. Each node shares a switch/router which leads to another uplink which leads to another uplink which eventually leads to the ISP which then dumps onto it's OC-3 or higher backbone to the internet(or less if you're stuck with a tiny mom and pop ISP). Eventually that switch/router will start getting a lot of traffic, which impedes it's performance. If you cut into that performance, you affect the performance of everyone else plugged into that switch/router.

Now the key point to the above is ISP's still design their network to perform to a ratio of users online/total amount of users. Just because they are now trying to enforce caps does not mean that their network will support EVERY customer of theirs at max cap. Which means you do not have 128 dedicated to you and to you only. Caps stop ridiculous hogging and overuse of bandwidth. But it still affects others a bit.

bkuhl · Post by **bkuhl** » Wed May 02, 2001 10:07 am

Say you have a 128 up cap. Envision your use of that bandwidth with some sort of flow meter, similar to a tachometer on a car. A web server or FTP server or mail server will mostly have that tachometer sitting just above idle, with occasional bursts up into the mid range, and a rare burst towards the redline. A game server will have that needle up into the yellow zone all the time, even into the redline. A game server that occasionally lets 1 or 2 players in...no, but most game server admins want their server to be popular, and will find out what the max amount of people that server will let in on it's bandwidth to play well. A game server will normally tax and utilize all available bandwidth usage. They have that much constant traffic.

Huh? An FTP server does sucks up all bandwidth at all times because people aren't always connected transfering files. And under the same principle, people are NOT always connected to a game server. Even if it is a 24x7 server.

As to the caps ensuring that if someone maxes their available bandwidth and does not cut into others performance....that is baloney. It is especially baloney with how cable is designed. The cables neighborhood nodes, simplified, and similar to subnetted workgroups on a large network. Each node shares a switch/router which leads to another uplink which leads to another uplink which eventually leads to the ISP which then dumps onto it's OC-3 or higher backbone to the internet(or less if you're stuck with a tiny mom and pop ISP). Eventually that switch/router will start getting a lot of traffic, which impedes it's performance. If you cut into that performance, you affect the performance of everyone else plugged into that switch/router.

My post above addresses this. It is known that the caps hold the outbound (upstream) bandwidth below the available outbound bandwidth on a node. So, outbound node saturation is not an issue.
Furthermore, aren't you just talking about porrly designed networks? That can occuring on local ethernet segments, DSL backends, or cable. A poorly designed network will always have bottle necks up the chain. That has nothing to do with the contention that there is limited node bandwidth which game servers exhaust.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Wed May 02, 2001 10:47 am

I'm just going under the assumption that 99 44/100 % of all ISPs do not build their structure so that it will have 100% of the guaranteed bandwith available to 100% of all their customers 100% of the time.

This one's getting old, everyone dug into the trenches and this thread is turning into a beaten horse.