On 8/2/06, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nikolas Britton wrote:

> On 8/2/06, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But the question then goes back to: can you make any kind of count out
>> of cvsup servers?  Someone already said they thought you couldn't.
>> At the end of the day, I think that unique IP address is as close as
>> it's possible to get to host count.  It will undercount NATed hosts and
>> networks with single cvsup/portsnap distribution points, and will
>> overcount variable IP addresses.  The latter, I think matters the least
>> as long as you do your stats over a short enough period (e.g. 1 month).
>> That wouldn't overcount much and deliberate faking would be hard and
>> limited (how many IP addresses can one faker get access to?).
> The problem with cvsup (I use cvsup.) is the error margin. The closer
> we get to release dates the more I use cvsup, It's a side effect of
> running -STABLE. anyways... back to the fakers...
> Lets think about the usage patterns of a "typical" faker vs NAT:
> Faker:
> * All from one IP address.
> * Sequential requests.
> * Scripted, so each request should be timed perfectly with the one
> before and the one after it.
> * Thousands of requests.
> NATed Boxes:
> * All from one IP address.
> * Parallel requests.
> * Not scripted, requests should be more random.
> * Hundreds of requests?

But if what you are counting is IP addresses then you faker has achieved
nothing.  You're not counting connections, but IP addresses.  Yes, you
undercount NATed and yes you undercount when distribution points are
used, but I don't see any easy way to fake, at least not on the scale of
a URL.  Yes, if you happen to have 200 IP addresses, you could probably
assign each in turn to your BSD box and cvsup, but this seems less
likely to me, and is inherently limited.

Sometimes I cvsup three times a day - in which case all are likely to
come from same IP.  Sometimes I cvsup once a month or less, in which
case looking at statistics only over the last month will tend to flatten
any effect from variable IPs.

It's far from perfect, but unless you want each installation to have its
own license number and a "GenuineFreeBSD" program which enforces unique
license numbers somehow, I don't think there is a perfect answer.  I'm
guessing no-one in their right might does want this kind of enforcement ;-)

This may sound dumb but why don't we just put a registration link on
the FreeBSD main page... or "registration" in sysinstall. Isn't this
how everyone else handles the problem?

BSD Podcasts @:
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to