At 06:10 PM 16/12/99 +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote:
>This server rule is a toss anyway.
>
>I'm thinking identd server here, they arn't going to ban those otherwise
>nobody can irc.
>The intent of this rule is probably trying to stop things like mp3 servers,
>and porn servers, and other things that use largish load.
>
>Their system is designed to be asyncronous ( correct me if I'm wrong here ),
>and I'm sure isn't designed to have shitloads of people running mp3 servers
>from their house. So all they do is ban servers, and then keep an eye out
>for anyone doing more than insignificant traffic. If they DID allow servers
>it would completely fuck them over, so what other choice do they have.
Believe you mean asymmetrical bandwidth (cable architecture download
oriented, assumes not all houses want massive up-link bandwidth
simultaneously),
not asynchronous.
My guess is their motivation is bandwidth oriented, but they state it in
duuuh terms of "don't run servers".
Earlier discussion some weeks/months ago re TBPC (Telstra equivalent) had
expert opinion from someone involved in the network design originally.
Anyone care to offer expert facts (instead of my guesswork) re
Optus @Home cable n/w architecture vs. TBPC n/w architecture ?
Any technical pros/cons, or is it just pricing difference ?
At least Optus openly support linux, which is not officially supported under
TBPC.
I'm interested :
- have seen TBPC cable lightning download speeds for $60/mth at my boss's
place
- Optus @home is similar basic pricing, but without the surcharge for
exceeding
specified amount of MB/month
- while TBPC megabyte limit sounds huge to anyone with a modem, once you
start downloading 15 minute video clips in real time it suddenly looks small
and starts costing.
>
>It's still not a good thing, but if they mostly ignore insignificant stuff,
>who cares. I for one will be running my webserver on the identd port when
>I'm not at home, so if they run port scanners, "they can't very well stop me
>from ircing can they"
>
>Everybody has ports open, and there's no fucking way they would ban people
>from closing ports they need.
>
></mindless drivel>
>
>Adam
>----- Original Message -----
>From: David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Brian Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: Dave Fitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, 16 December 1999 5:07 PM
>Subject: Re: [SLUG] OT: Optus to be unlimited pricing!
>
>
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Brian Martin wrote:
>>
>> > Can't see the full "Acceptable use policy" as you say,
>> > but part of it bans running a server, (as does Bigpond Cable) ...
>> >
>> > <<quote>>
>> > Can I operate a server from my home computer?
>> >
>> > No. The Optus @Home service is for residential, casual use only and does
>not
>> > support or allow servers of any kind from the home.
>> >
>> > <<cut>>
>> >
>> > Security risks only occur as a result of subscriber activity that falls
>> > outside the Acceptable Use Policy such as operating a server from your
>home
>> > computer.
>> >
>> > <<unquote>>
>>
>> Does this mean that if I switch on my Macintosh's built-in and
>> very effective webserver function, I have to disconnect?
>>
>> d'uh
>>
>> --
>> SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
>> To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
>> unsubscribe in the text
>>
>
>--
>SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
>To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
>unsubscribe in the text
>
----------------------------------------------
Brian Martin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Future Software Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
