Bao Q. Nguyen wrote: > If soaking up the bandwidth, wouldn't a simple technical solution like > priority queue solve this? For example, traffic that are unencrypted and > classifiable (http, aim ... etc) are given the highest priority in term > of delivery and anything else is best effort. So even if there are 6 > abusive users online, the next guy who tried to load a webpage would get > it immediately. >
I think this is a pure technical issue. If someone is downloading content in violation of the law, a simple user agreement that they don't have to face the ramifications for, is not going to slow them down. The next problem is that just because traffic is on port 80, does not mean it is http traffic. P2P software can function on whatever port it chooses. However, I know of layer 7 firewalls that will look at a packet and can tell you what it is. If it not recognized, the firewall gives it a low priority and if it is a P2P protocol, we block it (I also think this includes port 25). The only thing that has to be done is to keep the layer 7 firewall rules up to date. It can just be scripted. -- Jason Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ SoCalFreeNet.org General Discussion List To unsubscribe, please visit: http://socalfreenet.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_socalfreenet.org
