> "Not Exactly".. there is a court case (MAI Systems Corp. vs Peak
> Computer Inc
> 991 F.2d 511) holding that copying from storage media into
> computer ram *IS*
> actionable copyright infringement. A specific exemption was written into
> the copyright statutes for computer _programs_ (but *NO
Stephane Bortzmeyer (bortzmeyer) writes:
>
> > that appears on most packaged foods in the States, that ISPs put on
> > their Web sites and advertisements. I'm willing to disclose that we
> > block certain ports [...]
>
> As a consumer, I would say YES. And FCC should mandates it.
... an
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:14:33PM -0600,
David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 61 lines which said:
> To try to make this slightly more relevant, is it a good idea,
> either technically or legally, to mandate some sort of standard for
> this? I'm thinking something like the "N
des and replacements are
moving toward that goal. In the meantime, it is what it is and we need to
deal with it.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Joe Greco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: ISPs slowing P
> Geo:
>
> That's an over-simplification. Some access technologies have different
> modulations for downstream and upstream.
> i.e. if a:b and a=b, and c:d and c>d, a+b
> In other words, you're denying the reality that people download a 3 to 4
> times more than they upload and penalizing every
ist
Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Interesting, because we have a whole college attached of 10/100/1000
users,
> and they still have a 3:1 ratio of downloading to uploading. Of course,
> that might be because the school is rate-limiting P2
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
Interesting, because we have a whole college attached of 10/100/1000 users,
and they still have a 3:1 ratio of downloading to uploading. Of course,
that might be because the school is rate-limiting P2P traffic. That further
confirms that P2P, generally i
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
In other words, you're denying the reality that people download a 3 to
4 times more than they upload and penalizing every in trying to attain
a 1:1 ratio.
That might be your reality.
My reality is that people with 8/1 ADSL d
> Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:19:58 -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
[[.. munch ..]]
>
> From a technical point of view, if your Bittorrent protocol seeder
> does not have a copy of the file on its harddrive, but pulls
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David E. Smith
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:03 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
>The wireless ISP business is a bit of a special case in this regard, where
P2P traffic
I
would call disproportionate ratios.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:22 AM
To: nanog list
Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
>
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
In other words, you're denying the reality that people download a 3 to 4
times more than they upload and penalizing every in trying to attain a
1:1 ratio.
That might be your reality.
My reality is that people with 8/1 ADSL download twice as much as the
Geo:
That's an over-simplification. Some access technologies have different
modulations for downstream and upstream.
i.e. if a:b and a=b, and c:d and c>d, a+bmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geo.
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:47 PM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: ISPs slowing P2P
> > P2P based CDN's are a current buzzword;
P2P based CDN's might be a current buzzword, but are nothing more than
P2P technology in a different cloak. No new news here.
> This should prove to be interesting. The Video CDN model will be a
> threat to far more operators than P2P has been to
Geo. wrote:
The vast majority of our last-mile connections are fixed wireless. The
design of the system is essentially half-duplex with an adjustable
ratio between download/upload traffic.
This in a nutshell is the problem, the ratio between upload and
download should be 1:1 and if it w
P2P based CDN's are a current buzzword; Verilan even has a white paper
on it
https://www.verisign.com/cgi-bin/clearsales_cgi/leadgen.htm?form_id=9653&toc=e20050314159653020&ra=72.219.222.192&email=
Password protected link.
I think we are going to see a lot more of this, and not just f
> I would be much happier creating a torrent server at the data
> center level that customers could seed/upload from rather
> than doing it over
> the last mile. I don't see this working from a legal
> standpoint though.
Seriously, I would discuss this with some lawyers who have
experience
On Jan 13, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
It may. Some of those other things will, too. I picked 1) and
2) as
examples where things could actually get busy for long stretches of
time.
The wireless ISP business is a bit of a special case in this
regard, where P2P traffic is especi
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, David E. Smith wrote:
It's not the bandwidth, it's the number of packets being sent out. One
customer, talking to twenty or fifty remote hosts at a time, can "kill"
a wireless access point in some instances. All those little tiny packets
tie up the AP's radio time, and th
> >It may. Some of those other things will, too. I picked 1) and 2) as
> >examples where things could actually get busy for long stretches of
> >time.
>
> The wireless ISP business is a bit of a special case in this regard, where
> P2P traffic is especially nasty.
>
> If I have ten customers
I would be much happier creating a torrent server at the data center
level that customers could seed/upload from rather than doing it over
the last mile. I don't see this working from a legal standpoint though.
Why not? There's plenty of perfectly legal P2P content out there.
Hum.
> The wireless ISP business is a bit of a special case in this regard, where
> P2P traffic is especially nasty.
>
> It's not the bandwidth, it's the number of packets being sent out. One
> customer, talking to twenty or fifty remote hosts at a time, can "kill" a
> wireless access point in some
>It may. Some of those other things will, too. I picked 1) and 2) as
>examples where things could actually get busy for long stretches of
>time.
The wireless ISP business is a bit of a special case in this regard, where P2P
traffic is especially nasty.
If I have ten customers uploading to a W
The vast majority of our last-mile connections are fixed wireless. The
design of the system is essentially half-duplex with an adjustable ratio
between download/upload traffic.
This in a nutshell is the problem, the ratio between upload and download
should be 1:1 and if it were then there
> Joe Greco wrote,
> > There are lots of things that could heavily stress your upload channel.
> > Things I've seen would include:
> >
> > 1) Sending a bunch of full-size pictures to all your friends and family,
> >which might not seem too bad until it's a gig worth of 8-megapixel
> >phot
Joe Greco wrote,
There are lots of things that could heavily stress your upload channel.
Things I've seen would include:
1) Sending a bunch of full-size pictures to all your friends and family,
which might not seem too bad until it's a gig worth of 8-megapixel
photos and 30 recipients, a
> The vast majority of our last-mile connections are fixed wireless. The
> design of the system is essentially half-duplex with an adjustable ratio
> between download/upload traffic. PTP heavily stresses the upload
> channel and left unchecked results in poor performance for other
> custom
The vast majority of our last-mile connections are fixed wireless. The
design of the system is essentially half-duplex with an adjustable ratio
between download/upload traffic. PTP heavily stresses the upload
channel and left unchecked results in poor performance for other
customers.
Ba
On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:04 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TenFold-Jump-In-Encrypted-BitTorrent-Traffic-89260
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Traffic-Shaping-Impacts-Gnutella-Lotus-Notes-88673
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Net-Neutrality-iOverblow
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:54:55 -0600
"Frank Bulk - iNAME" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not aware of any modern cable modems that operate at 10 Mbps.
> Not that they couldn't set it at that speed, but AFAIK, they're all
> 10/100 ports.
>
Yup. I've measured >11M bps on file transfers from my
EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
What about Comcast selling their new speed burst thing that allows up to
12 mbit, but also providing modems with a 10mbit Ethernet port. They
have been doing that around here fo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe
St Sauver
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
Jared mentioned:
# We'll see what happens, and how th
Jared mentioned:
# We'll see what happens, and how the 160Mb/s DOCSIS 3.0 connections
#and infrastructure to support it pan out on the comcast side..
There may be comparatively little difference from what you see today,
largely because most hosts still have stacks which are poorly tuned b
On Jan 9, 2008 3:04 PM, Deepak Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, my question is simply.. for ISPs promising broadband service.
> Isn't it simpler to just announce a bandwidth quota/cap that your "good"
> users won't hit and your bad ones will?
Deepak,
No, it isn't.
The bandwidth cap ge
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:58:13PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:36:50 EST, Matt Landers said:
> >
> > Semi-related article:
> >
> > http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyYIyHWl3sEg1ZktvVRLdlmQ5hpwD8U1UOFO0
>
> Odd, I saw *another* article that said that while the FCC
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:04:37PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
[snip]
> However, my question is simply.. for ISPs promising broadband service.
> Isn't it simpler to just announce a bandwidth quota/cap that your "good"
> users won't hit and your bad ones will?
Simple bandwidth is not the issue.
On 9 Jan 2008, at 20:04, Deepak Jain wrote:
I remember Bill Norton's peering forum regarding P2P traffic and
how the majority of it is between cable and other broadband
providers... Operationally, why not just lash a few additional 10GE
cross-connects and let these *paying customers* comm
They're not the only ones getting ready. There are at least 5 anonymous
P2P file sharing networks that use RSA or Diffie-Hellman key exchange
to seed AES/Rijndael encryption at up to 256 bits. See:
http://www.planetpeer.de/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
You can only filter that which you can s
Deepak mentioned:
#However, my question is simply.. for ISPs promising broadband service.
#Isn't it simpler to just announce a bandwidth quota/cap that your "good"
#users won't hit and your bad ones will?
Quotas may not always control the behavior of concern.
As a hypothetical example, assu
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:36:50 EST, Matt Landers said:
>
> Semi-related article:
>
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyYIyHWl3sEg1ZktvVRLdlmQ5hpwD8U1UOFO0
Odd, I saw *another* article that said that while the FCC is moving to
investigate unfair behavior by Comcast, Congress is moving to invest
Semi-related article:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyYIyHWl3sEg1ZktvVRLdlmQ5hpwD8U1UOFO0
-Matt
On 1/9/08 3:04 PM, "Deepak Jain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TenFold-Jump-In-Encrypted-BitTorrent-Traffi
> c-89260
> http://www.dslreports.com/sh
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:04:37 EST, Deepak Jain said:
> Encouraging "encryption" of more protocols is an interesting way to
> discourage this kind of shaping.
Dave Dittrich, on another list yesterday:
> They're not the only ones getting ready. There are at least 5 anonymous
> P2P file sharing net
42 matches
Mail list logo
