Is this possible?

[therenegade]

I was over at a friend's place today and he has cable.I had an idea while I was on there..let me know if it seems feasible:
P2P as I've seen it,is slow for dialup users for obvious reasons of speed.However,it offers users wth cable/dsl/whatnot a much better chance at sharing files.(I'd like to clarify here btw that I don't support music piracy).Now,considering a case in which a bunch of cable users with the same provider and the same general area got together....there'd be a fairly high chance they'd be connected to the same router I think?(this part is pure conjecture,is the reasoning right?) thus creating a virtual LAN of sorts...which could then be used to share files.Now,this is fairly normal..what I was wondering was that what would happen if certain users discontinued their service with the provider...since they'd be still able to send raw packets over the cable modem,wouldnt they still be connected to this LAN and thus still be able to share files?(You have a p2p application installed on every computer and sharing's enabled obviously).Also...what's to stop another user from setting up his computer as a server and allowing other computers to connect to him and thereby go online?(assuming the computer has the resources).Also...if p2p sharing were possible in such a way...what's to stop someone with malicious intent from 'taking hold' of the computers on the LAN and using them to mount a Ddos?
It's all a bit muddled up right now so please let me know if this is confusing lol.

Cheers

[dinowuff]

Don't think it would happen. Traffic from the modem would not make it to the router. The cable dsl/cable modems mac address is how access is controled. Sure you're sending raw packets, but to a null route.

[rapier57]

Yeah, dinowuff is right. Just because the client system is connected, doesn't mean they can hit the router. All your neighborhood traffic would have to pass the router. It wouldn't be like a switched network, where the traffic would work between nodes on the inside of the router.

[therenegade]

Ahem....I have a slight problem then...I'd pretty much figured that out too....now...suppose I tell you I know of a provider that doesnt seem to have configed their routers like that?A few users I know in the same area've been using the service for pretty much everything p2p related...most of them haven't renewed their subscriptions.What should I do then?I haven't actually been in a position like this before...should I let the provider know or just let sleeping dogs lie?

[rapier57]

Well, it is kind of the ISP's problem. Ethically, you should take some action, since you are now aware of it. You might pose an anonymous suggestion that they examine their router configs a bit more closely. Then, if the activity continues, it is the ISP's problem.

[dinowuff]

It's kind of like peeing in someone elses pond. On reflection, you could switch traffic in a star topgraphy - mesh type setup.

Here's a google reference. Not really applying to cable, but from the abstract, they could use switched nodes and then the traffic would indeed only die once it met the router.

A method of operation of a telephone and data PABX communication network which comprises a set of nodes interlinked by means of TDM-transmission lines. Each node serves an individual switching exchange and comprises its own control module. To a user the network is manifested as a single system. The invention flexibly sub-divides such a system, allowing the offering of fully integrated specific facilities within the boundaries of domains that can be arbitrarily defined within the total network configuration. Local data is provided in each node for a specific facility-bounded program which dictates the operation of a control module of the node. Such data contains an adjustable address file having the addresses of those nodes over which a call or a specific facility to which such program relates can be accepted. Nodes to which a specific facility is extended and whose addresses are incorporated in the file of each such node define a fully integrated domain wherein the relevant specific facility can be offered.

Source http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4811334.html

[FyreMouse]

Traditionally the big service providers use products like CA's Unicenter, Spectrum, or Micromuse to monitor and provision MAC addresses via several different methods of auto-discovery and ACL's. The same prodcut suites are also used in most large corporations for trackign and provisioning user systems and network hardware. While there are a few ways around it, they are generally frowned upon and readily detectable with various IDS's and Forensics tool sets.

As to your situation where the provider has not disabled your service can think of several possibilities as to why it's happening but the most likley is the provider does not have a very effective provisioning system for tracking service changes and reconciling them against active/inactive user accounts. Not entirely uncommon since many companies are still behind the time in tieing bussiness to IT. Even when the IT is their business. Anyways.....

You have an interesting situation. While you are not Required to inform them of thier mistake you can be held liable for the services you are using when you have not paid for it. Just liek if you "steal" cable service you are just as liable in this case and could face both financial and criminal repurcusions. I'd shoot out a message to the P2P users warning them and then let the company know of thier problem. I can garauntee they can track your usage or at presence on thier network even if they have not shutdown your access.

Squeek.

FyreMouse

[therenegade]

Well,here's the thing in a nutshell then..the ISP had no business in letting this happen...however,since we're all human..and dumb..mistakes do happen.Thing is..I can probably do an anonymous suggestion,but I wouldn't want it to lead to legal repercussions for the morons who've been highriding.It hasn't occured to any of them that they could probably go online for free yet and obviously I dont plan on telling them.However,like I said..their actions definitely monitor on illegal and I'm guessing the provider won't be amused.Oh,and FyreMouse...there's no way in hell I can be held accountable for anything lol..I'm not on their service
Nice link dinowuff...it'd be interesting to see if it'd be possible to implement in a slightly different manner on cable.

[Maverick811]

Originally posted here by FyreMouse
While you are not Required to inform them of thier mistake you can be held liable for the services you are using when you have not paid for it. Just liek if you "steal" cable service you are just as liable in this case and could face both financial and criminal repurcusions.

This was my first thought - stealing cable. Just because the line is there doesn't mean you have the right to use it even though you are not paying for it.... Err, not you but the users you are referring to in this case. While I haven't really thought of this in the past or seen any kind of evidence of this happening currently, the cable companies are really trying to crack down on cable theft and I'm sure that they wouldn't be too happy about Internet access theft as well

My suggestion - give the users a warning, let them know the situation and what is basically happening - give them a few days to stop their actions, then drop the company the anonymous notice of the issue. The violaters have their warning, it's up to them to decide which course of action to take from that point.

[nihil]

Hello therenegade It is not your business (corporation) and you, your family and friends are not employees or stockholders? You are not even being inconvenienced by these people using the bandwidth?

If all that is true, you have no moral obligations whatsoever

I know nothing of Indian commercial law, but over here these people would not be comitting a crime. What they ARE doing is building up a liability. They are effectively consuming a service on credit? and are fully liable to pay for it when the company bills them.

Now, the infrastructure to provide cable is expensive, and whilst it is not subscribed to and switched off, the company earns nothing. Supposing a Finance Director (CFO) has figured this out, and has deliberately decided not to cut people off? by actually using the service they have implicitly renewed their subscription, and do not have a leg to stand on in court?

The question now becomes: "is it immoral to use people's immorality and greed against themselves?"

Just a thought?