> Dave Smith wrote: >> Steve wrote: >> Yes anything using TCP would be vulnerable. So I'm saying for the >> purposes of this file transfer protocol lets ditch TCP all together >> and instead use UDP. > > ISPs can block UDP datagrams by port number with a single > iptables rule. They could even do it so randomly that it > appears to be natural packet loss, causing your protocol to > totally break down. Just because there's no "RST" bit in UDP > doesn't mean ISPs can't break it. And Comcast has demonstrated > that they aren't above doing something like that. > > If your aim is to get around an unscrupulous ISP, forget it. A > new protocol ain't gonna fix that problem. Choosing a new ISP > will.
Choosing a new ISP *might*, assuming you can get a new ISP where you live (I'm fortunate enough to have iProvo, otherwise Comcast would be my only available option: Qwest doesn't have DSL service in my neighborhood). There's always the possibility, though, that a new ISP would be just as bad. Running all your P2P traffic over a VPN *might* also fix the problem. (In Comcast's case, I'm fairly sure it will, but there's nothing that prevents them from degrading VPN traffic in the future, too.) Relakks.com is one VPN option that might be worth a look, if you plan on running much torrent traffic on your Comcast connection. Be careful about going over the "nonexistent" Comcast usage limits, though, or you may end up with no ISP at all. A new protocol over UDP definitely won't fix the problem, though. It's no harder to block than the old one. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
