> "Not Exactly".. there is a court case (MAI Systems Corp. vs Peak
> Computer Inc
> 991 F.2d 511) holding that copying from storage media into
> computer ram *IS*
> actionable copyright infringement. A specific exemption was written into
> the copyright statutes for computer _programs_ (but *NO
MAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:07 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Except that upstreams are not at 27 Mbps
> (http://i.cmpnet.com/commsd
Stephane Bortzmeyer (bortzmeyer) writes:
>
> > that appears on most packaged foods in the States, that ISPs put on
> > their Web sites and advertisements. I'm willing to disclose that we
> > block certain ports [...]
>
> As a consumer, I would say YES. And FCC should mandates it.
... an
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:14:33PM -0600,
David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 61 lines which said:
> To try to make this slightly more relevant, is it a good idea,
> either technically or legally, to mandate some sort of standard for
> this? I'm thinking something like the "N
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
Except that upstreams are not at 27 Mbps
(http://i.cmpnet.com/commsdesign/csd/2002/jun02/imedia-fig1.gif show that
you would be using 32 QAM at 6.4 MHz). The majority of MSOs are at 16-QAM
at 3.2 MHz, which is about 10 Mbps. We just took over two systems
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Greco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[snip]
As long as you fairly disclose to your end-users what limitations and
restrictions exist on your network, I don't see the problem.
You've set out a qualification that generally doesn't exist. For example,
this discu
Joe Greco wrote:
As long as you fairly disclose to your end-users what limitations and
restrictions exist on your network, I don't see the problem.
You've set out a qualification that generally doesn't exist. For example,
this discussion included someone from a WISP, Amplex, I believe, t
downstream to
upstream ports.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:41 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
>
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
I'm not aware of MSOs configuring their upstreams to attain rates for 9 and
27 Mbps for version 1 and 2, respectively. The numbers you quote are the
theoretical max, not the deployed values.
But with 1000 users on a segment, don't these share the 27 meg
ikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:27 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
> I think no matter what happens, it's going to be very interesting as
Comcast
> rolls out DOCSIS 3.0 (with speeds ar
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Martin Hannigan
Sent: Tue 1/15/2008 9:25 PM
To: Joe Greco
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
On Jan 15, 2008 3:52 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joe Greco wrote:
> > > I have no idea what th
On Jan 15, 2008 3:52 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joe Greco wrote:
> > > I have no idea what the networking equivalent of thirty-seven half-eaten
> > > bags of Cheetos is, can't even begin to imagine what the virtual
> > > equivalent
> > > of my couch is, etc. Your metaphor doe
> Joe Greco wrote:
> > I have no idea what the networking equivalent of thirty-seven half-eaten
> > bags of Cheetos is, can't even begin to imagine what the virtual equivalent
> > of my couch is, etc. Your metaphor doesn't really make any sense to me,
> > sorry.
>
> There isn't one. The "fat man
This is amazing. People are discovering oversubscription.
When we put the very first six 2400bps modems for the public on the
internet in 1989 and someone shortly thereafter got a busy signal and
called support the issue was oversubscription. What? You mean you
don't have one modem and phone lin
Joe Greco wrote:
I have no idea what the networking equivalent of thirty-seven half-eaten
bags of Cheetos is, can't even begin to imagine what the virtual equivalent
of my couch is, etc. Your metaphor doesn't really make any sense to me,
sorry.
There isn't one. The "fat man" metaphor was get
> Joe Greco wrote:
> > Time to stop selling the "always on" connections, then, I guess, because
> > it is "always on" - not P2P - which is the fat man never leaving. P2P
> > is merely the fat man eating a lot while he's there.
>
> As long as we're keeping up this metaphor, P2P is the fat man who
> As long as we're keeping up this metaphor, P2P is the fat man who says
Guys, according to wikipedia over 70 million people fileshare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_file_sharing
That's not the fat man, that's a significant portion of the market.
Demand is changing, meet the new needs o
Joe Greco wrote:
Time to stop selling the "always on" connections, then, I guess, because
it is "always on" - not P2P - which is the fat man never leaving. P2P
is merely the fat man eating a lot while he's there.
As long as we're keeping up this metaphor, P2P is the fat man who says
he's go
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:43:12 -0500
> "William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > So users who rarely use their connection are more profitable to the ISP.
> > >
> > > The fat man isn't a welcome sight to the owner of the AY
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:56:30 +0900
Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > But the fat man isn't allowed to take up residence in the restaurant
> > and continously eat - he's only allowed to be there in bursts, like we
> > used to be able to ass
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
I think no matter what happens, it's going to be very interesting as Comcast
rolls out DOCSIS 3.0 (with speeds around 100-150Mbps possible), Verizon FIOS
Well, according to wikipedia DOCSIS 3.0 gives 108 megabit/s upstream as
opposed to 27 and 9
On 1/15/08, Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> ffs, stop with the crappy analogies.
>
> The internet is like a badly designed commodity network. Built
> increasingly
> cheaper to deal with market pressures and unable to shift quickly to
> shifting
> technologies.
>
> Just like the telcos
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008, Mark Smith wrote:
> But the fat man isn't allowed to take up residence in the restaurant
> and continously eat - he's only allowed to be there in bursts, like we
> used to be able to assume people would use networks they're connected
> to. "Left running" P2P is the fat man n
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:43:12 -0500
"William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 14, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So users who rarely use their connection are more profitable to the ISP.
> >
> > The fat man isn't a welcome sight to the owner of the AYCE buffe
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:43:12PM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So users who rarely use their connection are more profitable to the ISP.
> >
> > The fat man isn't a welcome sight to the owner of the AYCE buffet.
>
> The fat man
On Jan 14, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So users who rarely use their connection are more profitable to the ISP.
>
> The fat man isn't a welcome sight to the owner of the AYCE buffet.
Joe,
The fat man is quite welcome at the buffet, especially if he brings
friends and t
> From my experience, the Internet IP Transit Bandwidth costs ISP's a lot
> more than the margins made on Broadband lines.
>
> So users who rarely use their connection are more profitable to the ISP.
The fat man isn't a welcome sight to the owner of the AYCE buffet.
What exactly does this imply
des and replacements are
moving toward that goal. In the meantime, it is what it is and we need to
deal with it.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Joe Greco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: ISPs slowing P
> Geo:
>
> That's an over-simplification. Some access technologies have different
> modulations for downstream and upstream.
> i.e. if a:b and a=b, and c:d and c>d, a+b
> In other words, you're denying the reality that people download a 3 to 4
> times more than they upload and penalizing every
ist
Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Interesting, because we have a whole college attached of 10/100/1000
users,
> and they still have a 3:1 ratio of downloading to uploading. Of course,
> that might be because the school is rate-limiting P2
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
Interesting, because we have a whole college attached of 10/100/1000 users,
and they still have a 3:1 ratio of downloading to uploading. Of course,
that might be because the school is rate-limiting P2P traffic. That further
confirms that P2P, generally i
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
In other words, you're denying the reality that people download a 3 to
4 times more than they upload and penalizing every in trying to attain
a 1:1 ratio.
That might be your reality.
My reality is that people with 8/1 ADSL d
> Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:19:58 -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
[[.. munch ..]]
>
> From a technical point of view, if your Bittorrent protocol seeder
> does not have a copy of the file on its harddrive, but pulls
uarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted
and amended or that it is virus-free.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: 14 January 2008 17:22
To: nanog list
Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
On Mon, 14
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David E. Smith
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:03 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
>The wireless ISP business is a bit of a special case in this regard, where
P2P traffic
I
would call disproportionate ratios.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:22 AM
To: nanog list
Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
>
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
In other words, you're denying the reality that people download a 3 to 4
times more than they upload and penalizing every in trying to attain a
1:1 ratio.
That might be your reality.
My reality is that people with 8/1 ADSL download twice as much as the
Geo:
That's an over-simplification. Some access technologies have different
modulations for downstream and upstream.
i.e. if a:b and a=b, and c:d and c>d, a+bmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geo.
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:47 PM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: ISPs slowing P2P
> > P2P based CDN's are a current buzzword;
P2P based CDN's might be a current buzzword, but are nothing more than
P2P technology in a different cloak. No new news here.
> This should prove to be interesting. The Video CDN model will be a
> threat to far more operators than P2P has been to
Geo. wrote:
The vast majority of our last-mile connections are fixed wireless. The
design of the system is essentially half-duplex with an adjustable
ratio between download/upload traffic.
This in a nutshell is the problem, the ratio between upload and
download should be 1:1 and if it w
P2P based CDN's are a current buzzword; Verilan even has a white paper
on it
https://www.verisign.com/cgi-bin/clearsales_cgi/leadgen.htm?form_id=9653&toc=e20050314159653020&ra=72.219.222.192&email=
Password protected link.
I think we are going to see a lot more of this, and not just f
> I would be much happier creating a torrent server at the data
> center level that customers could seed/upload from rather
> than doing it over
> the last mile. I don't see this working from a legal
> standpoint though.
Seriously, I would discuss this with some lawyers who have
experience
On Jan 13, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
It may. Some of those other things will, too. I picked 1) and
2) as
examples where things could actually get busy for long stretches of
time.
The wireless ISP business is a bit of a special case in this
regard, where P2P traffic is especi
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, David E. Smith wrote:
It's not the bandwidth, it's the number of packets being sent out. One
customer, talking to twenty or fifty remote hosts at a time, can "kill"
a wireless access point in some instances. All those little tiny packets
tie up the AP's radio time, and th
> >It may. Some of those other things will, too. I picked 1) and 2) as
> >examples where things could actually get busy for long stretches of
> >time.
>
> The wireless ISP business is a bit of a special case in this regard, where
> P2P traffic is especially nasty.
>
> If I have ten customers
I would be much happier creating a torrent server at the data center
level that customers could seed/upload from rather than doing it over
the last mile. I don't see this working from a legal standpoint though.
Why not? There's plenty of perfectly legal P2P content out there.
Hum.
> The wireless ISP business is a bit of a special case in this regard, where
> P2P traffic is especially nasty.
>
> It's not the bandwidth, it's the number of packets being sent out. One
> customer, talking to twenty or fifty remote hosts at a time, can "kill" a
> wireless access point in some
>It may. Some of those other things will, too. I picked 1) and 2) as
>examples where things could actually get busy for long stretches of
>time.
The wireless ISP business is a bit of a special case in this regard, where P2P
traffic is especially nasty.
If I have ten customers uploading to a W
The vast majority of our last-mile connections are fixed wireless. The
design of the system is essentially half-duplex with an adjustable ratio
between download/upload traffic.
This in a nutshell is the problem, the ratio between upload and download
should be 1:1 and if it were then there
> Joe Greco wrote,
> > There are lots of things that could heavily stress your upload channel.
> > Things I've seen would include:
> >
> > 1) Sending a bunch of full-size pictures to all your friends and family,
> >which might not seem too bad until it's a gig worth of 8-megapixel
> >phot
Joe Greco wrote,
There are lots of things that could heavily stress your upload channel.
Things I've seen would include:
1) Sending a bunch of full-size pictures to all your friends and family,
which might not seem too bad until it's a gig worth of 8-megapixel
photos and 30 recipients, a
> The vast majority of our last-mile connections are fixed wireless. The
> design of the system is essentially half-duplex with an adjustable ratio
> between download/upload traffic. PTP heavily stresses the upload
> channel and left unchecked results in poor performance for other
> custom
The vast majority of our last-mile connections are fixed wireless. The
design of the system is essentially half-duplex with an adjustable ratio
between download/upload traffic. PTP heavily stresses the upload
channel and left unchecked results in poor performance for other
customers.
Ba
On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:04 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TenFold-Jump-In-Encrypted-BitTorrent-Traffic-89260
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Traffic-Shaping-Impacts-Gnutella-Lotus-Notes-88673
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Net-Neutrality-iOverblow
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:54:55 -0600
"Frank Bulk - iNAME" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not aware of any modern cable modems that operate at 10 Mbps.
> Not that they couldn't set it at that speed, but AFAIK, they're all
> 10/100 ports.
>
Yup. I've measured >11M bps on file transfers from my
EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
What about Comcast selling their new speed burst thing that allows up to
12 mbit, but also providing modems with a 10mbit Ethernet port. They
have been doing that around here fo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe
St Sauver
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
Jared mentioned:
# We'll see what happens, and how th
Jared mentioned:
# We'll see what happens, and how the 160Mb/s DOCSIS 3.0 connections
#and infrastructure to support it pan out on the comcast side..
There may be comparatively little difference from what you see today,
largely because most hosts still have stacks which are poorly tuned b
On Jan 9, 2008 3:04 PM, Deepak Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, my question is simply.. for ISPs promising broadband service.
> Isn't it simpler to just announce a bandwidth quota/cap that your "good"
> users won't hit and your bad ones will?
Deepak,
No, it isn't.
The bandwidth cap ge
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:58:13PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:36:50 EST, Matt Landers said:
> >
> > Semi-related article:
> >
> > http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyYIyHWl3sEg1ZktvVRLdlmQ5hpwD8U1UOFO0
>
> Odd, I saw *another* article that said that while the FCC
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:04:37PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
[snip]
> However, my question is simply.. for ISPs promising broadband service.
> Isn't it simpler to just announce a bandwidth quota/cap that your "good"
> users won't hit and your bad ones will?
Simple bandwidth is not the issue.
On 9 Jan 2008, at 20:04, Deepak Jain wrote:
I remember Bill Norton's peering forum regarding P2P traffic and
how the majority of it is between cable and other broadband
providers... Operationally, why not just lash a few additional 10GE
cross-connects and let these *paying customers* comm
They're not the only ones getting ready. There are at least 5 anonymous
P2P file sharing networks that use RSA or Diffie-Hellman key exchange
to seed AES/Rijndael encryption at up to 256 bits. See:
http://www.planetpeer.de/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
You can only filter that which you can s
Deepak mentioned:
#However, my question is simply.. for ISPs promising broadband service.
#Isn't it simpler to just announce a bandwidth quota/cap that your "good"
#users won't hit and your bad ones will?
Quotas may not always control the behavior of concern.
As a hypothetical example, assu
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:36:50 EST, Matt Landers said:
>
> Semi-related article:
>
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyYIyHWl3sEg1ZktvVRLdlmQ5hpwD8U1UOFO0
Odd, I saw *another* article that said that while the FCC is moving to
investigate unfair behavior by Comcast, Congress is moving to invest
Semi-related article:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyYIyHWl3sEg1ZktvVRLdlmQ5hpwD8U1UOFO0
-Matt
On 1/9/08 3:04 PM, "Deepak Jain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TenFold-Jump-In-Encrypted-BitTorrent-Traffi
> c-89260
> http://www.dslreports.com/sh
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:04:37 EST, Deepak Jain said:
> Encouraging "encryption" of more protocols is an interesting way to
> discourage this kind of shaping.
Dave Dittrich, on another list yesterday:
> They're not the only ones getting ready. There are at least 5 anonymous
> P2P file sharing net
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TenFold-Jump-In-Encrypted-BitTorrent-Traffic-89260
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Traffic-Shaping-Impacts-Gnutella-Lotus-Notes-88673
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Net-Neutrality-iOverblowni-73225
If I am mistakenly being duped by some
68 matches
Mail list logo
