I guess it is two different philosophy's are in play here: 1) All networking traffic, except for virus and spam, should be transported by SCFN network, including P2P traffic. However, P2P should receive a low priority because it saturates the network and degrades the network in general. There are different levels of priorties here so that DNS and VOIP always works as best as possible.
2) All networking traffic, except for virus, spam and P2P should transported by SCFN network. P2P causes too much trouble on technical and legal grounds and all best effort is made to block it. People who are bandwidth hogs are kicked off the network or are given very low priority. On my person network, I do #2. My attitude is that since I pay the network fees, I get to decide the traffic. I think the SCFN network should take the #1 path, unless P2P becomes such a problem that it has to shift to #2. Shifting to #2 may require too much management to make it effective. I wish I could be there tonight to discuss this. Bao Q. Nguyen wrote: > In my opinion from working with large "open" network. P2P shouldn't be > immediately classify as the "bad guy" or the "abusive" user because I > strongly believe that is what the recording industry and alike want > everyone to think. Bittorrent or what not they are just a service, with > a service you can do what ever that you needed to do on it. You can not > immediately label DVD-R as a privacy device or tape, because they are > just a tool, a meer tool. What people do with it is up to them. Until > you can exactly identify the purpose of such usage, it's in my opinion > that it's bias to immediately lock down the MAC or just disconnection > him/her. Going down the path of labeling an "abusive" user because he > using p2p is an ever ending unsolvable problem, the RIAA have been > trying to do this and we will see where it will end. The RIAA back in > the want to make tape illegal because it can use to copy music. It's > just a false generalizat ion. > > Rather, promoting the classifiable traffic that you are interested in > serving is a much better approach. With that in mind, if no one is using > the connection, why is it so bad that some users are taking up all the > bandwidth? I do not believe that you pay less for your connection > because it's not in use is it? > > -bn > > On 3/22/07, *Matt Fanady* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > For whatever reason, I have never had any problem with users abusing > my node, which has been up since late 2002. Both when I lived in > Ocean Beach, and now that I live in North Park, and even here in NP, > with a pretty high population density, I get several users, many > regulars, but have yet to have a single problem with people abusing > the system (at least not abuse via excessive p2p traffic). > > Not to diminish your problem at all Steve, I just find it interesting. > > > -M@ > > > > On 3/22/07, Jason Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Michael Mee wrote: > > > The tragedy of the commons ensures that this free wireless > effort is > > > never a completely hassle free endeavor. Even on my street > recently, > > > someone has been running bittorrent which is playing havoc with my > > > (wireless) voip connection ;-). > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons > > > > I just dealt with the same problem in my apartment building with > my own > > connection. My solution was to make my wired connections high > priority > > (TiVo), block all P2P for guests, limit bandwidth of guests > connections > > but make sure that DNS and VOIP got high priorities for all > guests. All > > unknown protocols (Layer 7 Filtering) got a very low priority. > > > > In that case, P2P just went away because downloading became too > slow for > > even free. > > > > -- > > Jason Murphy > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > SoCalFreeNet.org General Discussion List > > To unsubscribe, please visit: > http://socalfreenet.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_socalfreenet.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > SoCalFreeNet.org General Discussion List > To unsubscribe, please visit: > http://socalfreenet.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_socalfreenet.org > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > SoCalFreeNet.org General Discussion List > To unsubscribe, please visit: > http://socalfreenet.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_socalfreenet.org -- -- Jason Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ SoCalFreeNet.org General Discussion List To unsubscribe, please visit: http://socalfreenet.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_socalfreenet.org
