I think it would make great sense. It would increase security for the
peers as well, if it could get it from a local user more often and a
less often from a potentially entertainment industry monitored source.
We also use private ASNs at sites, and we have one Internet-facing
public ASN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive_network_Provider_Participation_for_P2P
P4P is trying to do something very much like that. Lots of issues to
work out as yet.
P2P will evolve but likely will be a mix of P2P/P4P. I know I would love
to have a
P2P cache box to ease/defray the load (off peak,
here to help you"
Jeff
ImageStream
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Butch Evans
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:37 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BitTorrent to go UDP in next release
On Tue, 2008-1
] On
Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 2:09 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BitTorrent to go UDP in next release
If you put it in your AUP, and make sure your users know about it, then you
are fine.
It is the hiding of it and lying about it that got comcast
Jeff
ImageStream
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Butch Evans
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:37 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BitTorrent to go UDP in next
Josh Luthman wrote:
I don't believe
Comcast lied nor lied about it. I read in the news that they announced
their monthly bandwidth limits and Bittorent throttling practices became
well known. Is this not the case? I do believe that limiting the type of
traffic is wrong, however the amount
I see - didn't hear that they denied traffic shaping. I must be behind on
the information as I only heard they announced their network was doing so.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:32 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BitTorrent to go UDP in next release
Can you go into detail on to what happened or some information to it? All
I
saw was the nice and clean 500gigs/mo is enough for everyone, we're
: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 2:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BitTorrent to go UDP in next release
Can you go into detail on to what happened or some information to it? All I
saw was the nice and clean 500gigs/mo is enough for everyone, we're
limiting torrent traffic announcements
] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 2:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BitTorrent to go UDP in next release
Can you go into detail on to what happened or some information to it? All I
saw was the nice and clean 500gigs/mo is enough for everyone, we're
limiting
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/05/richard_bennett_bittorrent_udp/
Would it not make sense for bittorrrent clients to have a preference
to share with users under the same AS number? Would not help much on
last mile but might on Internet backbone.
Matt
Think the author had it right the first time.
Steve Barnes
RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drew Lentz
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:55 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] BitTorrent to go UDP
To me this is the scary part:
The overall picture suggests that uTP has a serious flaw. If it simply
relies on latency measurements to find preferred paths, it¹s likely to favor
paths where it¹s successfully circumventing management. When a path is
managed to give UDP priority over TCP (as is
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 12:03 -0600, Drew Lentz wrote:
Another solution would be for traffic shapers to look inside the UDP
payload in order to differentiate VoIP from uTP, but this approach is
frustrated by the protocol obfuscation option that remains a live feature in
BitTorrent over uTP.
It's a good thing I didn't get into being a voip provider. Shouldn't I
be able to block it all now?
Butch Evans wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 12:03 -0600, Drew Lentz wrote:
" Another solution would be for traffic shapers to look inside the UDP
payload in order to differentiate
15 matches
Mail list logo
