Utorrent does have a linux port right? Ive switched to transmission and I use IPTables to block all unnecessary seeders.
Chris... On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:45 AM, Jeff Lasman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday 07 December 2008 03:28 am, Jeff Lasman wrote: > >> the ISPs learn how to identify it and aggressively throw away the >> packets. >> >> Which is actually much easier to do than the article points out ... >> deep packet inspection isn't going to be necessary. Only traffic >> rate. > > On page two of his second article: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/05/richard_bennett_bittorrent_udp/ > > the author, Richard Bennett, points out: > > <snip> > Several management tweaks can prevent perverse side-effects like this > from happening, such as reconfiguring traffic shapers to key on stream > volume rather than protocol type. > </snip> > > So he and I see the same "fix" implemented by ISPs to solve the problem > of the 'net coming to a standstill. > > He also points out that what the torrents are looking towards is an > entirely new protocol, uTP, which can still seriously impact traffic > (if routers that currently limit TCP/IP traffic don't limit uTP > traffic, more uTP traffic will cause more congestion on, and thus more > limiting of, TCP/IP traffic. > > But the fact that this is a new protocol actually makes it easy for the > ISPs to enter "reactive mode" (as Bennett also says on page two of his > more recent article); they can and will eventually learn to shape it as > much as they do now, or more so. > > What Eric Klinker (CEO of BitTorrent) has really done, is given the ISPs > ammunition to tell governments "See, they don't play fair, so we have > to identify and shape." > > In the long run: > > We could see a meltdown > > We could see traditional ISPs spend billions more on capacity or > dramatically raise their rates, or go out of business > > We could see them implement new terms of service (if necessary) with one > month lead times, and start shutting down the 5% of their users causing > the problem. > > Care to bet on the outcome? > > Note that the disclaimers as to time-of-day from my previous message > apply to this one as well. > > Jeff > -- > Jeff Lasman, Nobaloney Internet Services > P.O. Box 52200, Riverside, CA 92517 > Our jplists address used on lists is for list email only > voice: +1 951 643-5345, or see: > "http://www.nobaloney.net/contactus.html"; > _______________________________________________ > LinuxUsers mailing list > [email protected] > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers > -- "As we open our newspapers or watch our television screens, we seem to be continually assaulted by the fruits of Mankind's stupidity." -Roger Penrose
