All trackers from various site gives message "connection closed by peer" on my bt client since yesterday and no bt at all from my place (Bt Caves). I didn't change any setup on my client nor modem neither. Any one got this problem?



This post has been edited by payebudu: Jan 17 2007, 12:19 PM

Same here. I'm using uTorrent 1.6.1.

Maybe TMNet is starting to block p2p completely?

Thread somewhat related:

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=17547

I have the same problem. Happened to me Tuesday morning around 3am. All of a sudden, ALL trackers give the "connection closed by peer" error.

I'm using uTorrent, but tested with Azureus and the original Bittorrent, both same problem. I even changed computers, changed modem, changed different IPs, changed lines (I have 2 streamyx account/phone line here), and still the same problem. I "borrowed" my friend's account, still doesn't work.

I tested it on my friend's connection, it works fine. Weird. I think tmnet has found the Achilles heel of torrents. I'm just curious how/where are they implementing this since it doesn't affect my friend's connection.

I have no issues with speed (I get >150KB/sec), but what good is speed without being able to connect to trackers?

The more important question is, what am I gonna say to tmnet when I file a complaint?

Yeah, when I try in other location, it's ok. Means that TMNut is tracking and blocking our account (phone port) not username.

Thanks for the replies, I'm not alone now

Not all trackers are affected, some of the trackers still work for me.
I noticed this around 3am too, and around that time all my torrents went from 2-5kBps to 40-80kBps. So they were definitely doing something.

Same here... KLCC area... Using a corporate account and tried to change to different client to no avail.

Let just hope that TmNut is tweaking those lines for repair and not block phone port like you said...

This post has been edited by shyghost: Jan 17 2007, 06:07 PM

Suspect Streamyx block it base on User-Agent (client identification).
Why I know? Test by using a very common public tracker http://tracker.prq.to/announce.

First of all, I test it in Linux using 'wget'.
1. Retrieve the tracker URL without any option.
Response OK.
2. Using 'wget', specify the User-Agent as 'uTorrent'
Got 'Connection reset by peer.' Sucks!
3. Try other User-Agent strings: Azureus, BitTorrent, Shareaza
All the same, get 'Connection reset by peer.'
4. Try some nonsense User-Agent strings: test, abc, xyz
All pass, no probelm in getting the response.
Note: Surprisingly, 'BitComet' is not blocked. Maybe BitComent didn't identify itself in User-Agent as 'BitComet'.

Conclusion: Streamyx now start blocking the HTTP connection of P2P clients base on the User-Agent.
Suggestion: Find a proxy server, which can 'rewrite' your User-Agent to a common ID, e.g. IE or Firefox's ID.... to cheat. If you cannot find, install one. I use Squid for Linux.

This post has been edited by YiQi: Jan 17 2007, 05:36 PM

Funny this is I can still download eventhough the tracker connection is closed. Could it be because of having DHT enabled?

Now I got hit by this "connection closed by peer" thingy. 3am here also! So I tested with a new torrent and download won't start because it cannot connect to tracker!

miuk, only those downloads that were already started previously (before this problem) can continue!

YiQi, from your description it seems that another type of packet shaper at work? I wonder if that accounts for those odd ping times outside of Malaysia and Singapore now...



This post has been edited by lex: Jan 18 2007, 03:45 AM

DHT still works, apparently. I have no issues with torrents that allow DHT. Brilliant speeds.

The problem is with torrents from private trackers that disables DHT.

YiQi, I can now confirmed its blocked by detecting "User Agent".

I just started another torrent, brand new. No problems, in fact connection to peers are fast. Must be the DHT.

Dude, It's start to affect more users now

may some seeder be with you

Taken from my own post here: http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/361764/+960

Now can't connect to any peers. Back to 0KB/s again. WEB BROWSING HAS ALSO SLOWED DOWN!!

Ping times now

Local ~ 1100ms!
Sinagpore ~ 1200ms!
USA & rest of the world ~ 1500ms ?!

Conclusion is they now back to their original BT throttling packet/traffic shaper again!

Explanation on yesterday night and this morning sudden speed up and slow downs from my monitoring....

The first speed up is they bypassed the packet shaper. That accounts for the incredible speedup I got yeaterday plus the back to normal ping times I had (local ~ 9ms!). They were probably testing something out then...

Then they started switching routes to another packet shaper which does not throttle encrypted torrent connections BUT capable of blocking tracker connections - probably using simple pass thru protocol inspection, and not deep packet inspection. This caused all those "connection reset by peer" errors. Ping times also jumped suddenly (local ~ 62ms!)

Then today morning, they are back the original packet shaper (which does deep packet inspection) that throttles and keeps disconnecting encrypted torrent connections. Ping times went crazily high (local ~ 900ms!!)

What say you?


Note: Cannot connect to tracker but can download + can connect to tracker but cannot download = 2 different packet shapers?

Just curious, may i know which address are you pinging? Would like to try it myself as i find my web browsing to be normal. Only BT and MIRC upside down.

Problem is now that tracker is blocked, can't get connection to Malaysian users, dl is moving at snail speed.

Normal? Not now for me...

When the packet shaper was off last nite, my browsing went super fast. Web pages loads and displays almost instantly (even with downloading in the background).

As for the pings? Take any one you can think of... Examples of local ones which I've randomly tested...

Pinging 202.188.0.133 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 202.188.0.133: bytes=32 time=980ms TTL=57
Reply from 202.188.0.133: bytes=32 time=1078ms TTL=57
Reply from 202.188.0.133: bytes=32 time=965ms TTL=57
Reply from 202.188.0.133: bytes=32 time=466ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 202.188.0.133:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 466ms, Maximum = 1078ms, Average = 872ms

Pinging lowyat.net [202.190.197.144] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=1034ms TTL=52
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=1090ms TTL=52
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=1425ms TTL=52
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=729ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 202.190.197.144:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 729ms, Maximum = 1425ms, Average = 1069ms

Pinging ahyap.com [202.75.42.56] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 202.75.42.56: bytes=32 time=1163ms TTL=55
Reply from 202.75.42.56: bytes=32 time=840ms TTL=55
Reply from 202.75.42.56: bytes=32 time=969ms TTL=55
Reply from 202.75.42.56: bytes=32 time=1111ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 202.75.42.56:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 840ms, Maximum = 1163ms, Average = 1020ms

Average 1 second! Didn't you notice the slight delay loading these pages?

this might be a lil bit off topic ...

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
© Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\user>ping www.lowyat.net

Pinging www.lowyat.net [202.190.197.144] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=52
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 202.190.197.144:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 2, Lost = 2 (50% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 51ms, Maximum = 62ms, Average = 56ms

C:\Documents and Settings\user>ping www.lowyat.net

Pinging www.lowyat.net [202.190.197.144] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=52
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=52
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=52
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 202.190.197.144:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 54ms, Maximum = 84ms, Average = 66ms

C:\Documents and Settings\user>ping www.ahyap.com

Pinging ahyap.com [202.75.42.56] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 202.75.42.56: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.75.42.56: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.75.42.56: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.75.42.56: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 202.75.42.56:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 60ms, Maximum = 101ms, Average = 73ms

C:\Documents and Settings\user>ping www.yahoo.com

Pinging www.yahoo-ht2.akadns.net [209.131.36.158] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 209.131.36.158: bytes=32 time=251ms TTL=47
Reply from 209.131.36.158: bytes=32 time=253ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.131.36.158: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.131.36.158: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 209.131.36.158:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 251ms, Maximum = 262ms, Average = 256ms

C:\Documents and Settings\user>ping www.hinet.net

Pinging www.hinet.net [61.219.38.89] with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Reply from 61.219.38.89: bytes=32 time=421ms TTL=238
Reply from 61.219.38.89: bytes=32 time=416ms TTL=238
Reply from 61.219.38.89: bytes=32 time=415ms TTL=238

Ping statistics for 61.219.38.89:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 415ms, Maximum = 421ms, Average = 417ms

As for me connection i'm wondering if it's affected by packet shaper? I was up whole night doing some revision but my BT is constant at 5kbs with 3 tasks combined.

Hey people, don't panic.
We know TMNut do a lots of trick to throttle/block P2P.
So far we know:

1. Traffic shape on Peer-2-Peer network, so you download very slow, or timeout.
2. Block HTTP connection for P2P, which is mostly used by connecting to BT Tracker.
3. May block some well-known Tracker/eMule servers.
4. May block DHT / KAD or any serverless connection as well.
5. DC your line once a while (maybe 15 minutes) so that it will 'reset' your connection, give you a different IP, and your P2P client will start from 0 again. (Dirty trick)

Ping time only show how fast & how stable the remote site response to you. Even fast response doesn't mean you can connect to them without problem, there is completely different thing.

So, for the time being, we can only:
1. Enable whatever Protocl Encryption / Obfuscation, etc in your P2P client.
2. Use VPN / Proxy if possible
3. Hide your P2P User-Agent, by using Proxy, or some P2P client have the option to change, eg. BitSpirit
some eMule Mod will change your User-Agent to Firefox if Obfuscation is enabled.

This post has been edited by YiQi: Jan 18 2007, 02:00 PM

Bypass BT tracker blocking: http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/399896

I know that. The point is the ultra high ping times also indicates that the connection is delayed, possibly going thru a long route or too many routers, even packet/traffic shapers. My ping times are utterly ridiculous. For LOCAL PEERS, a one second ping is highly suspicious.

Not working here. Tried both PAWS and BitSpirit. Getting 0KB/s!

My latest pings (only slight improvement, probably because everyone else is "jammed" by TMNutz on my side)....

Pinging lowyat.net [202.190.197.144] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=953ms TTL=52
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=1050ms TTL=52
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=786ms TTL=52
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=750ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 202.190.197.144:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 750ms, Maximum = 1050ms, Average = 884ms

Pinging 202.188.0.133 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 202.188.0.133: bytes=32 time=1042ms TTL=57
Reply from 202.188.0.133: bytes=32 time=974ms TTL=57
Reply from 202.188.0.133: bytes=32 time=774ms TTL=57
Reply from 202.188.0.133: bytes=32 time=892ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 202.188.0.133:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 774ms, Maximum = 1042ms, Average = 920ms

Pinging yahoo.com [216.109.112.135] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1065ms TTL=46
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=774ms TTL=46
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1310ms TTL=46
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1318ms TTL=46

Ping statistics for 216.109.112.135:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 774ms, Maximum = 1318ms, Average = 1116ms

Looks like my connection is on that BT throtling deep packet inspection one...

Edit: I can connect to trackers here without using proxy or User Agent mods. That's how I arrive at my conclusion. WEB BROWSING is still SLOW here...

This post has been edited by lex: Jan 18 2007, 03:58 PM

Whoa, those are horrible ping times man. Pinging tmnet's DNS shouldn't take THAT long. I ran a few pings myself, pretty unstable, i get anyway from 50-800ms o-O.

If ping to local IP is suffering high latency, there must be something wrong with the TMNut's router.
I did encounter strange problem, status in modem show connected, but ping gateway even get timeout, have to DC and connect again.

Pinging to www.tm.net.my here (my office) looks okie, avg 30ms.

Guys, are you pinging any site when using P2P at the same time?
If yes, you will suffering slow response when too many connection at you modem/router, even pinging your gateway.

To get accurate statistic, don't run any P2P program, if you just close it, wait for about 10 minutes to let your connection closed properly, completely.

If you use cFosSpeed, try toggle the 'Favour Ping Time'.

YiQi, I do have a rather good connection here. I also have a firewall. Yesterday night I can get the usual pings (before TMNutz throttling mess) when they bypass the packet shapers for a while. Local peers can get consistently BELOW 60ms! Fastest being 9ms This is with my torrent running in the background also! I even tested the mule again.. Same results.

Anyway, ping times update...

Pinging www.3dns.tm.net.my [202.71.97.48] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 202.71.97.48: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=118
Reply from 202.71.97.48: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=118
Reply from 202.71.97.48: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=118
Reply from 202.71.97.48: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=118

Ping statistics for 202.71.97.48:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 13ms

Pinging lowyat.net [202.190.197.144] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=52
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=52
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=52
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 202.190.197.144:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 9ms, Maximum = 100ms, Average = 33ms

All this with torrents running

Speeds picked up a bit now, from 0KB/s to 9.5KB/s.. Another packet shaper bypass?

Edit: Web browsing picked up speed again also!

This post has been edited by lex: Jan 18 2007, 04:59 PM

Yea, P2P was running. Though i've done pings before with P2P running and the spikes were never that huge.

I wonder how long this will last? See pix...


Attached thumbnail(s)

i got these problem as well since yesterday.. was using utorrent.. reinstall everything.. even try other client(bitcomet).. problem still persist.. download upload is still running but assuming the tracker is a private tracker, ur upload or download there will not be counted if they got seeder bonus or ratio system in an example.. no worries leecher will still get your upload but just there is no point..
right now im using ktorrent and everything was running fine..

Well, something to figure out where is the bottleneck, traceroute (tracert) maybe useful. I found quite a lots of time the bottleneck is the gateway itself. e.g.

My traceroute from my office:
traceroute to www.lowyat.net (202.190.197.144), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 60.xx.xx.xx (60.xx.xx.xx) 0.646 ms 0.592 ms 0.525 ms
2 219.93.218.176 (219.93.218.176) 43.576 ms 23.214 ms 9.311 ms
3 219.93.216.225 (219.93.216.225) 4.362 ms 4.334 ms 5.092 ms
4 210.187.143.1 (210.187.143.1) 4.467 ms 4.309 ms 4.072 ms
5 219.93.182.232 (219.93.182.232) 5.064 ms 4.279 ms 4.371 ms
6 202.71.100.9 (202.71.100.9) 4.359 ms 4.583 ms 4.349 ms
7 202.75.52.3 (202.75.52.3) 4.643 ms 4.570 ms 4.363 ms
8 218.100.22.243 (218.100.22.243) 4.659 ms 4.555 ms 4.646 ms
9 218.100.22.34 (218.100.22.34) 5.189 ms 5.885 ms 7.429 ms
10 ge3-0.jsr4.jaring.my (161.142.173.10) 4.904 ms 5.389 ms 5.445 ms
11 * * *
12 * * *

ignore the 11, 12.. and further, probably traceroute ICMP is blocked there.
Usually, try to ping your gateway first, in my example, the No.2.
Occasionally, I found huge delay at the gateway, especially when my line is in high utilization, when some peoples download heavy stuff (software patches, movie trailers....), until their download finish, the ping time drop to normal. This is my experience.

Is TM Net blocking connection to trackers permanently or temporarily? What do you guys think?

i bet they will block till the end of world, no question about it

TODAY... my BT ROCKSSSS

218.111 + cFoSspeed + Tuotu
location - tmn maluri

This post has been edited by Suk: Jan 18 2007, 07:41 PM


Attached thumbnail(s)

First they put the packet shaper that causes "connection closed by peer" locally... This kills any torrents trying to start at the tracker.

Pinging lowyat.net [202.190.197.144] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=53
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=53
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=53
Reply from 202.190.197.144: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 202.190.197.144:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 77ms, Average = 63ms


Then they put the other packet shaper that throttles and kills encrypted torrent connections internationally...

Pinging yahoo.com [216.109.112.135] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2166ms TTL=40
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2218ms TTL=40
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2218ms TTL=40
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2187ms TTL=41

Ping statistics for 216.109.112.135:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 2166ms, Maximum = 2218ms, Average = 2197ms

The picture tells my story...

This post has been edited by lex: Jan 18 2007, 09:35 PM


Attached thumbnail(s)

I still managed to finish a file I started 8 hours ago. Eventhough cannot connect to tracker, there's still hope.

How come your pings are so damn horrible?
My torrents are moving at around 30-40kBps (total) atm, and when i ping yahoo i get a response in about 300ms which is quite normal.

I experienced a sudden unthrottle mode yesterday midnite. I was able to connect to many international peers (as Msian IP normally starts with 60, 218 & 219) and all my BT speed went sky rocketing high. It was maxed out for about 10mins or so then it slowly die down to 0kB/s. After some 15 seconds or so, it went sky rocketing again for a couple of minutes. Then out of nowhere my BT client was cut off and I'm not connected to anyone. Also I can't do web browsing at all. After some time I just DC & reconnect again. Things went back to the way it was, throttle, sigh. I'm sure TM Nut was doing some restructuring. Life without throttle is good. Just seeing the numbers and stats are mind blowing.

And today I can't connect to any torrents. All of them closed by peer. Cilaka punya TM.

Yups, TMNutz is definitely doing some "restructuring" (with their traffic/packet shapers). That accounts for those sudden surges in speeds due to bypassing the shapers, with the intention of either rerouting to new shapers or upgrading existing shapers.

Guess what, that short surge of bandwidth didn't save one download I had since November. Of the 4 last November ones I had, 1 went unfinished and now the tracker replies "Failure: torrent not registered with this tracker".

I got this problems also damn Tm.Net sux

Please further all discussions here. Thank you.