Matthew Toseland wrote: > Sure. But it will cost them. RSTs are trivial. The Golden Shield uses RSTs > for > example, rather than remembering which streams it wants to kill. Because > statefully killing streams would cost many times more.
Killing, yes, but if they just want to shape the traffic then RED is cheap and stateless. I don't know why Comcast has decided to use RSTs instead of traffic shaping, but sooner or later they'll have to move to traffic shaping as more P2P traffic is encrypted. > Throttling UDP > likewise would cause other problems: it would slow down skype dramatically, > alienating a lot of users, so they'd need to put more hardware in to detect > skype... I'm not sure about that - reducing VoIP traffic is the second major selling point for these devices after reducing P2P traffic. :-) > Classic STUNT is far more complex than UDP traversal, requires listening on > raw sockets (i.e. needs root), and requires using a globally reachable STUNT > server, which is required to send a spoofed SYNACK to each side! STUNT has moved beyond that technique, I believe these days they're using simultaneous open and port prediction, both of which can be coordinated by a third peer so you don't need any dedicated servers or spoofing - it's similar to UDP hole-punching but with tighter timing. Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
