by ping an ip range every interval of time if there is no ping reply then no download limit if there is ping reply return to the limit or follow the schedule
So, do you want to set BitComet to dos erm.. check if another PC is powered up and connected to the internet and set the upload limit depending on that? How would that help you?
by ping an ip range every interval of time if there is no ping reply then no download limit if there is ping reply return to the limit or follow the schedule
I believe that if you say that three times in a row, an evil internet gremlin will appear and infect your system.
I’m sure that the author of the post has a very good idea what he wants. :wacko:
It’s just you guys being so obtuse. That’s what stalls all the progress in this world. :rolleyes: (Sighs…)
Huh???
I’m sure that the author of the post has a very good idea what he wants
… You’re kidding, right??
I rest my case… 
You guys are naughty!! ROFL
/monthly_09_2010/post-56648-1284432816524.gif" rel=“”>
So, do you want to set BitComet to dos erm.. check if another PC is powered up and connected to the internet and set the upload limit depending on that? How would that help you?
yes and the download and it will help other pcs not me because i only set the download limit so the internet be usable for them
I believe that if you say that three times in a row, an evil internet gremlin will appear and infect your system.
am i that bad describing what i want
am i that bad describing what i want
Bingo!
Unfortunately yes. You are in fact terrible at describing what you want and we have absolutely no idea what it is that you want to accomplish (at least I don’t), who would it serve and how it would do that.
So you want to set a download/upload limit depending on whether or not other computers on your LAN are powered and connected? Security issue. Any firewall will block that (some personal firewalls can be set to allow LAN and other specific IP addresses, but still) and disabling them will be a very bad idea.
{
–>Guessing what he meant: Check;
–>Guessing the next lottery numbers: Pending…;
}
So you want to set a download/upload limit depending on whether or not other computers on your LAN are powered and connected? Security issue. Any firewall will block that (some personal firewalls can be set to allow LAN and other specific IP addresses, but still) and disabling them will be a very bad idea.
yes that’s what i want but i think the ping has no security problems so detect the computers on the lan using ping is ok
Try pinging them yourself, see if it works. I don’t have a LAN but a firewall should block any unsolicited ICMP traffic.
i already did before posting and it worked
You cannot ping any personal computer with a reasonable amount of security software, such as a firewall running. In fact I was unable to ping your IP address (I would have been worried for you if I could).
For this suggested option to work, you would need control of every computer on your lan and have the software installed on all of them. Also, it wouldn’t be a very efficient method of determining if the computer was using bandwidth because a ping will respond even if the computer is idle and using no bandwidth.
I think you would do much better looking into some type of lan bandwidth manager software.
ps. I do like the general idea, if it were possible, but there is no way to make this option viable for anyone that doesn’t have control of all computers in the network, and even if they did, it would be a massively complicated procedure just to get it to work.
hey guys, lets try not to publicly humiliate our members here. Agreed this guys post made no sense at all, but imagine how a novice user will feel if they see us making fun of a user for not knowing what they are talking about. They will be intimidated and afraid to post for fear of being made fun of.
Your real problem with this approach comes with the actual continued operation.
The goal of pretty much every firewall out there, is to look exactly like a powered-down/missing computer in this cyberspace. This is so that a potential attacker can’t tell whether or not there is anything there that might be worth probing further. “Is something connected at that address or not? Can’t tell either way.”
That means that if one of the computers on the network has or later acquires such a firewall, you can’t tell the difference whether it’s running or not by pinging it. This becomes a completely unreliable method for the great majority of customers. Only a very few could or would use it, which makes this slide way down to the bottom of the list of things to do.
You’d be much, much better off using other software to manage the whole LAN and address the problem of bandwidth directly, than trying to go through the back alley like this.
I think he deserved it. kudos to Vasy for figuring him out, but we’re not doing the guy any favors letting his terrible communication skills slide. Think of it as a force for social good. Yeah, you SHOULD have paid attention to your English classes in school. You better start trying to catch up now, because you’re unintelligible.
It’s better than, “I didn’t understand you, so I’m ignoring you.”, which is my other option.
kudos to Vasy for figuring him out
At least there’s something I’m good at…Thanks!
Actually, people will always feel insulted about their grammar. More so if it’s close to the truth.
It’s known that you’ll get results out of a student faster if you pinpoint each of his flaws then to just say “You have flaws. Find them. Deal with them”. To counter vagueness you must use clearness. Yin yang.
i think the ping has no security problems
A single ping isn’t harmful but a full fledged denial-of-service attack is. A firewall can’t tell the difference between them and you don’t want the later to happen.
Well, this may be viewed as a bigger issue than it is. In most firewalls that I’ve tried, it’s a trivial thing to make your PC stealthed as far as the Internet is concerned and to still make it visible/accessible to its peers in the LAN.
It stands to reason that it’s pointless to build a LAN if the computers which form it can’t communicate more or less freely with each other.
Of course, it should be duly noted that this is a feasible option only when YOU are the administrator of the whole LAN.
This is how my LAN works.
Now, that I understand what the initial poster meant (thanks Vasy) I can see that this may be an interesting idea to consider. I don’t know though, how far would this rank on the priority list of the development team.
But perhaps it’s worth a try (passing it to them).