On Friday 21 August 2009 16:22:22 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Alex Pyattaev<alex.pyatt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> He has stated that the network does not allow "P2P applications" running > >> Freenet > >> as pure darknet will technically be "F2F", now we can start arguing > >> whether F2F > >> is a subset of P2P or a distinctly different thing. But if we accept that > >> F2F > >> and P2P are different, then people who haven't enabled Opennet are > >> actually not > >> violating that particular network's guidelines. > >> > > Actually, darknet peers inside LAN are not violating ToS, because the > > inside-network traffic is not an issue. The actual problem is that a bunch > > of p2p users seeding and leeching from internet can consume every possible > > bit of channel available on the ISP's connection. That's why they are > > illegal. The traffic for each user is virtually unlimited, but if you do the > > math, you will see that without p2p you just can not consume even 2 mbit/s > > channel, and we provide 10 mbit/s. Thus, when the user is downloading > > something big from time to time - it works just nice. But when he fills up > > at list 5 mbit/s with 24/7 p2p exchange the traffic utilization is much > > bigger than it should be. I have proposed to the managers that we allow p2p > > for extra charge (or with limited QoS), but they have decided that it will > > not work out (all that piracy stuff is still an issue). > > Online gamers are not always client-server. I have stated spring as a > > typical random-server udp-based game (ta-spring.com), the Company Of heroes > > also works similarily - host is a random node, and all nodes are > > interconnected. > > Indeed, 24x7 active connections can be suspicious, so I hope you will > > counter this problem so that I don't bother setting up filter. I suggest > > breaking every single connection that lasts for more than 1 hour, if it is > > not unique, and then reconnecting after random delay. > > PS: fuck bosses, I run freenet node myself=) > > Last I checked, p2p wasn't "illegal" in any place I know of :) > > This sounds to me like you really just need better QoS for your users, > not to block P2P. It's relatively easy to allocate bandwidth such > that everyone gets their fair share, and those that use it *less* get > priority over the short term. That means that p2p users can use up > any excess bandwidth, but if someone else is just trying to browse the > web it will go quickly. Piracy is not the point of Freenet; please > don't assume anyone running Freenet is a pirate. You should consult a > lawyer about your liability for piracy -- I suspect, however, that you > aren't liable until you are notified of a *specific* problem. > > Also, have you tried just asking your users to set reasonable > bandwidth limits? All p2p apps I know of, including Freenet, provide > bandwidth limiting controls. Perhaps you should simply inform your > users of the situation and what you consider a reasonable bw limit for > p2p apps.
Or give them a quota and charge for usage beyond that. Or throttle them after it.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe