On Monday 10 March 2008 21:55, Michael Rogers wrote: > 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. :-)
Resulting in a mass exodus of users, surely? Well I suppose we're talking about monopoly providers here, so maybe not... > > > 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. But you absolutely must have a third peer. Whereas with UDP, if both sides know the other's address, you can just connect. This greatly improves connectivity in practice imho. > > Cheers, > Michael
pgp3E87EEVhI7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
