On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> Well, if the p2p program gets chunks of data from all sources, anyone with
> a faster uplink will complete faster and thus get more chunks (as the p2p
> program requests new chunks from each peer as the previous one is
> finished), and thus produce
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
> http://www.itic.ca/DIC/global/2003/09/Top_ISPs_by_P2P_Activity.jpg
"Average ratio of active P2P nodes / Available IPs".
That doesn't have much to do with number of bytes transferred, right?
http://www.itic.ca/DIC/global/2003/09/FastTrack_Servers_Loc
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:32:14PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 06:15:53PM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
> >
> > >>> Michel Py wrote:
> > >>> BitTorrent is a third of p2p traffic in Sweden? Wow. In
> > >>> the US it is a small blip on the radar.
> >
> > >> Petri Helenius wrot
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Walter De Smedt wrote:
> How are ISPs monitoring P2P traffic these days? Monitoring based on
> Netflow/cflowd data and fixed port numbers for application
> classification doesn't seem to do the trick anymore as more P2P
> applications use random port numbers or even use port
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> you can also be fairly accurate from the flow data.. eg genuine web traffic is
> short small transfers, P2P is long-lived flows of continous high usage
In the long run, there is no way to accurately determine what kind of
traffic everything is, an
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
you can also be fairly accurate from the flow data.. eg genuine web traffic is
short small transfers, P2P is long-lived flows of continous high usage
In the long run, there is no way to accurately determine what kind
Walter De Smedt wrote:
The next step in P2P recognition seems to be deep packet inspection with
signature based detection. The major problem here is scalability - I
don't see some device analyzing 1G, the typical uplink capacity of
Internet gateways in a medium SP network, of traffic at layer 7.
If
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:00:32 EDT, David Lesher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > location is off any faultline, or away from other malady, that might effect
its
> > main servers datacenter or connectivity. Problem is, they also want them as
> > physically close as possible.
> http://www.havenco.co
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, David Lesher wrote:
http://www.havenco.com/
http://chris.nodewarrior.org/reviews/DefCon11/Lackey.html
Does anyone actually know of any machines hosted on HMS Roughs[1]?
www.havenco.com is not, it appears. Of the 3/4 NSes listed in whois
for havenco.com, only two are
-- Virus Warning Message (on the network)
Found virus WORM_BAGLE.AG in file foto1.scr
The file foto1.scr can not be moved because /var/quarantine/virus/virZHRlaGxMt: No
space left on device.
This is a machine-generated message, please do not reply via e-mail. If you have
questi
10 matches
Mail list logo
