On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 17:28 -0600, Steve wrote: > The whole point here is to make an attack like that impossible to pull > off. Because if Comcast is doing it today,. other ISPs will do it > soon as well.
My point was to say that developing a new p2p protocol on top of UDP to get around a few ISPs blocks, is not the correct approach. This would just start a war, with users one-upping Comcast, just to be one-upped by Comcast later. Trying to beat the ISP will never work long-term, and long-term is what is required to design, code, publish, and advertise a new protocol. The correct approach is to complain about their poor service or switch providers. As far as your discussion of TCP vs UDP, you are still confused. Their attack on TCP just happens to be the most convenient method to block traffic. Comcast has ways to block UDP traffic as well, it's really quite easy. Consider that every other UDP packet is dropped. Do you really think that you can do better than TCP in terms of getting a complete file, intact, with less overhead?? --lonnie /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
