On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 02:59:21PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
I think network engineers are too quick to use network identifiers for
applications.
Analogous to using names or SSNs or anything else as a primary key
in a database. The database people already figured out that if you
don't assign
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 05:23:10AM -0800, Roland Dobbins wrote:
RFC1918 was created for a reason, and it is used (and misused, we all
understand that) today by many network operators for a reason.
I used 10/8 for my LAN a while back until my ISP's routers advertised
in DHCP suddenly started
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:19:12AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all
the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides.
IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones?
Why good ones. NAT is a basic IPv4 firewall. All
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:04:25PM -, Mark D. Kaye wrote:
Hi,
PIX/ASA Supports IPv6 Apparently, see below.
Don't know anyone who has tested it yet though ;-)
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6120/products_configuration_guide_
chapter09186a0080636f44.html
Note Failover does
On 1/30/2007 at 12:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all
the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides.
IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones?
Why good ones. NAT is a basic IPv4 firewall. All IPv6 needs to
] On Behalf Of
Joe Abley
Sent: 30 January 2007 01:34
To: Brandon Galbraith
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On 29-Jan-2007, at 20:12, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
On 1/29/07, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joseph S D Yao [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-30 01:59
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:48:04PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all
the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides.
...
IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones?
--
Joe Yao
* Joseph S D Yao [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-30 01:59]:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:48:04PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all
the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides.
...
IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good
On 1/29/07, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joseph S D Yao [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-30 01:59]:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:48:04PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all
the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of
Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all
the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides.
...
IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones?
OpenBSD's pf has support for v6 for years now.
Which works pretty well if you
On 29-Jan-2007, at 20:12, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
On 1/29/07, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joseph S D Yao [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-30 01:59]:
IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones?
OpenBSD's pf has support for v6 for years now.
Do a fair amount of appliance firewalls support
Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:48:04PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all
the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides.
...
IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones?
There are vendors on this list
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:57:24 -0500
Joseph S D Yao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:48:04PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
IPv6 makes NAT obsolete because IPv6 firewalls can provide all
the useful features of IPv4 NAT without any of the downsides.
...
IPv6
: Josh Gerber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:56:31 -0800
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Electric utilities, IP addressing, and BPL (was Re: Google wants to be
your Internet)
* From: Sean Donelan
* Date: Tue Jan 23 15:06:02 2007
What do
* From: Sean Donelan
* Date: Tue Jan 23 15:06:02 2007
What do you do when the electric companies split up again,
renumber the meters into different network blocks?
Thanks for the discussion. It's rare I've seen a thread on NANOG
that's so pertinent to my own situation.
I work for a
We also see this with extranet/supply-chain-type connectivity
between large companies who have overlapping address space,
and I'm afraid it's only going to become more common as more
of these types of relationships are established.
Fortunately, IP addresses are not intended for use on the
On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just remember, IP addresses are *NOT* Internet addresses.
They are Internet Protocol addresses. Connection to the
Internet and public announcement of prefixes are totally
irrelevant.
Of course I understand this, but I also understand
On 23 Jan 2007, at 16:48, Sean Donelan wrote:
Why is IP required,
Because using something that works so well means less wheel reinvention.
and even if you used IP for transport why must the meter
identification be based on an IP address?
Idenification via IP address (exclusively) is
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:07:06 -0800
Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course I understand this, but I also understand that if one can
get away with RFC1918 addresses on a non-Internet-connected network,
it's not a bad idea to do so in and of itself; quite the opposite, in
On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:58 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
The problem is that you can't be sure that if you use RFC1918 today
you
won't be bitten by it's non-uniqueness property in the future. When
you're asked to diagnose a fault with a device with the IP address
192.168.1.1, and you've got an
I hear you on the double, triple nat nightmare, I'm there myself. I'm
working on rolling out VRFs to solve that problem, still testing. The
nat complexities and bugs (nat translations losing their mind and
killing connectivity for important apps) are just too much for some of
our
The problem is that you can't be sure that if you use RFC1918
today you won't be bitten by it's non-uniqueness property in
the future. When you're asked to diagnose a fault with a
device with the IP address 192.168.1.1, and you've got an
unknown number of candidate devices using that
On Jan 24, 2007, at 5:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole address conservation mantra has turned out to be a lot
of smoke and mirrors anyway.
At the time, yes, this particular issue was overhyped, just as the
routing-table-expansion issue was underhyped. As we move to an
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jason LeBlanc
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:40 AM
To: Roland Dobbins
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Google wants to be your Internet
I hear you on the double, triple nat nightmare, I'm there
myself
On 24-Jan-2007, at 10:01, Jamie Bowden wrote:
Some days it kills
me that v6
is still not really viable, I keep asking providers where they're at
with it. Their most common complaint is that the operating systems
don't support it yet. They mention primarily Windows since
that is what
is most
One interesting point - they plan to use Broadband over Power Line
(BPL) technology to do this. Meter monitoring is the killer app for
BPL, which can then also be used for home broadband, Meter reading is
one of the top costs and trickiest problems for utilities.
- Dan
On Jan 22, 2007,
On 1/22/07, Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One interesting point - they plan to use Broadband over Power Line (BPL)
technology to do this. Meter monitoring is the killer app for BPL, which can
then also be used for home broadband, Meter reading is one of the top costs
and trickiest
-trivial.
Best regards,
Christian
--
Sent from my BlackBerry.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:52:45
To:Niels Bakker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Google wants to be your Internet
One interesting point - they plan
Why don't utilities strike deals with celluar providers to push data back to
HQ over the cellular network at low utilization times (how many people use
GPRS in the dead of night?).
-brandon
Enron did this with SkyTel paging in California. Or rather they wanted
to do it, couldn't hack it, so
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:18:09 CST, Brandon Galbraith said:
Why don't utilities strike deals with celluar providers to push data back to
HQ over the cellular network at low utilization times (how many people use
GPRS in the dead of night?).
Especially in rural areas (where physically reading
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Daniel Golding wrote:
One interesting point - they plan to use Broadband over Power Line (BPL)
technology to do this. Meter monitoring is the killer app for BPL, which can
then also be used for home broadband, Meter reading is one of the top costs
and trickiest problems
Especially in rural areas (where physically reading meters sucks the most due
to long inter-house distances), you have no guarantee of good cellular coverage.
The electric company *can* however assume they have copper connectivity to
the meter by definition
Doesn't have to be copper- it
Why is IP required, and even if you used IP for transport why must the
meter identification be based on an IP address? If meters only report
information, they don't need a unique transport address and could put
the meter identifier in the application data.
Even if the intent is to include
To: Brandon Galbraith
Cc: Daniel Golding; Niels Bakker; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:18:09 CST, Brandon Galbraith said:
Why don't utilities strike deals with celluar providers to
push data back to
HQ over the cellular network at low
On (2007-01-23 12:25 -0500), Jamie Bowden wrote:
Virginia Power replaced our meter over the summer with a new one that
has wireless on it. The meter reader just drives a truck past the
houses and grabs the data without him/her ever leaving the truck. I
have no idea what protocol they're
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Jim Shankland wrote:
Travis H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached
someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to
ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical
meters
[ 2-in-1, before I hit the 'too many flames posted' threshold ;) ]
Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Jan 22, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
But which address space do you put in the network behind the VPN?
RFC1918!? Oh, already using that on the DSL link to where you are
VPN'ing in
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
globally unique addresses
I have an electic company, it's got 2500 partners, all with the same
'internal ip addressing plan' (192.168.1.0/24) we need to communicate, is
NAT on both sides really efficient?
What do you do when the electric companies
Our REA has been reading the meter via the copper running to our house
for several years now. Took them less than 2 years to realize a savings.
(And since it's a co-op, that means the price goes down :) )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:18:09 CST, Brandon Galbraith said:
Hello;
On Jan 22, 2007, at 6:52 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
One interesting point - they plan to use Broadband over Power Line
(BPL) technology to do this. Meter monitoring is the killer app for
BPL, which can then also be used for home broadband, Meter reading
is one of the top costs
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
I have an electic company, it's got 2500 partners, all with the same
'internal ip addressing plan' (192.168.1.0/24) we need to communicate, is
NAT on both sides really efficient?
I've seen plenty of company setups that double/triple-NAT due to
On Jan 23, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
a) use global addresses for everything,
Everything which needs to be accessed globally, sure. But I don't
see this as a hard and fast requirement, it's up to the user based
upon his projected use.
b) use proper acl's),
Of
On Jan 23, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
The majority of them seem to be government organisations too. :)
We also see this with extranet/supply-chain-type connectivity between
large companies who have overlapping address space, and I'm afraid
it's only going to become more
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Travis H. wrote:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 06:41:19AM -0800, Lucy Lynch wrote:
sensor nets anyone?
The bridge-monitoring stuff sounds a lot like SCADA.
//drift
IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached
someone representing network providers,
Hi Adrian,
I've had a few ISPs out here in Australia indicate interest in a cache
that
could do the normal stuff (http, rtsp, wma) and some of the p2p stuff
(bittorrent
especially) with a smattering of QoS/shaping/control - but not cost
upwards of
USD$100,000 a box. Lots of interest, no
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Michal Krsek wrote:
For broad-band ISPs, whose main goal is not to sell or re-sell transit
though...
a) caching systems are not easy to implement and maintain (another system
for configuration)
b) possible conflict with content owners
c) they want to sell as much
Travis H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached
someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to
ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical
meters throughout the US
The response was yeah, well, maybe
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Shankland) [Mon 22 Jan 2007, 18:21 CET]:
Travis H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached
someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to
ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical
Jim Shankland wrote:
Travis H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached
someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to
ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical
meters throughout the US
The response
On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Jim Shankland wrote:
Travis H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached
someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to
ask about the feasibility of using IP to monitor the electrical
meters
On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
But I guess it is nonsense.
This is what ssh tunnels and/or VPN are for, IMHO. It's perfectly
legitimate to construct private networks (DCN/OOB nets, anyone? How
about that IV flow-control monitor which determines how much
Roland Dobbins wrote:
This is what ssh tunnels and/or VPN are for, IMHO. It's perfectly
legitimate to construct private networks (DCN/OOB nets, anyone? How
about that IV flow-control monitor which determines how much
antibiotics you're getting per hour after your open-heart surgery?)
for
Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
But I guess it is nonsense.
This is what ssh tunnels and/or VPN are for, IMHO
[..]
Of course, for protecting them you should use that and firewalls and
other security measures that one deems neccesary.
But which
On Jan 22, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
But which address space do you put in the network behind the VPN?
RFC1918!? Oh, already using that on the DSL link to where you are
VPN'ing in from. oopsy ;)
Actually, NBD, because you can handle that with a VPN client which
does a
In response to my saying:
I'd love to hear the business case for why my home electrical meter
needs to be directly IP-addressable from an Internet cafe in Lagos.
Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] responds, concisely:
It doesn't, and it shouldn't. That does *not* mean it should not have
a
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:15:44 -0600 (CST)
Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Michal Krsek wrote:
For broad-band ISPs, whose main goal is not to sell or re-sell transit
though...
a) caching systems are not easy to implement and maintain (another system
for
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jan 20, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Marshall wrote:
Those sorts of percentages are common in Pareto distributions (AKA
Zipf's law AKA the 80-20 rule).
With the Zipf's exponent typical of web usage and video watching, I
would
Lucy Lynch wrote:
sensor nets anyone?
On that subject, the current IP protocols are quite bad on delivering
asynchronous notifications to large audiences. Is anyone aware of
developments or research toward making this work better? (overlays,
multicast, etc.)
Pete
research
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 06:41:19AM -0800, Lucy Lynch wrote:
sensor nets anyone?
The bridge-monitoring stuff sounds a lot like SCADA.
//drift
IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached
someone representing network providers, possibly the IETF, to
ask about the feasibility of
On 1/20/07, Mark Boolootian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed
backbones:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html
The following comment has to be one of the most important comments in
the entire
On Jan 20, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Rodrick Brown wrote:
On 1/20/07, Mark Boolootian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and
oversubscribed
backbones:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html
The following comment has
Rodrick Brown wrote:
On 1/20/07, Mark Boolootian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed
backbones:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html
The following comment has to be one of the most important
The Internet: the world's only industry that complains that people want its
product.
On 1/20/07, David Ulevitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rodrick Brown wrote:
On 1/20/07, Mark Boolootian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed
The following comment has to be one of the most important comments in
the entire article and its a bit disturbing.
Right now somewhat more than half of all Internet bandwidth is being
used for BitTorrent traffic, which is mainly video. Yet if you
surveyed your neighbors you'd find that few
* Rodrick Brown:
Right now somewhat more than half of all Internet bandwidth is being
used for BitTorrent traffic, which is mainly video. Yet if you
surveyed your neighbors you'd find that few of them are BitTorrent
users. Less than 5 percent of all Internet users are presently
consuming
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
The Internet: the world's only industry that complains that people want
its product.
The quote sounds good, but nobody in this thread is complaining.
There have always been top-talkers on networks and there always will be.
The current top-talkers are the joe and
Hello;
On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Rodrick Brown wrote:
On 1/20/07, Mark Boolootian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and
oversubscribed
backbones:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html
The following
Marshall wrote:
Those sorts of percentages are common in Pareto distributions (AKA
Zipf's law AKA the 80-20 rule).
With the Zipf's exponent typical of web usage and video watching, I
would predict something closer to
10% of the users consuming 50% of the usage, but this estimate is not
that
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 10:12 -0800, Mark Boolootian wrote:
Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed
backbones:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html
Aren't there some Telco laws wrt cross-state, but still interlata, calls
not
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Marshall wrote:
Those sorts of percentages are common in Pareto distributions (AKA
Zipf's law AKA the 80-20 rule).
With the Zipf's exponent typical of web usage and video watching, I
would predict something closer to
10% of the users
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
the heavy hitters are long known. get over it.
i won't bother to cite cho et al. and similar actual measurement
studies, as doing so seems not to cause people to read them, only to say
they already did or say how unlike japan north america is. the
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:55:49 -0600 (CST), Gadi Evron wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
the question to me is whether isps and end user borders (universities,
large enterprises, ...) will learn to embrace this as opposed to
fighting it; i.e. find a business model that embraces
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007, Charlie Allom wrote:
This is a pure example of a problem from the operational front which can
be floated to research and the industry, with smarter solutions than port
blocking and QoS.
This is what I am interested/scared by.
Its not that hard a problem to get on
On Jan 20, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Marshall wrote:
Those sorts of percentages are common in Pareto distributions (AKA
Zipf's law AKA the 80-20 rule).
With the Zipf's exponent typical of web usage and video watching, I
would predict something closer to
10% of the users
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 05:55:49PM -0600, Gadi Evron wrote:
Some examples may be:
-. Working on establishing new standards and topologies to enable both
vendors and providers to adopt them.
Keep this point in mind while reading my below comment.
For now, the P2P folks who are not in most
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
snip
ISPs probably don't have an interest in BT caching because of 1)
cost of ownership, 2) legal concerns (if an ISP cached a publicly
distributed copy of some pirated software, who's then responsible?),
They cache the web, which has the same
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:33:26 +0800
Adrian Chadd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007, Charlie Allom wrote:
This is a pure example of a problem from the operational front which can
be floated to research and the industry, with smarter solutions than port
blocking and QoS.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Jan 20, 2007, at 11:55 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
the question to me is whether isps and end user borders (universities,
large enterprises, ...) will learn to embrace this as opposed to
fighting it; i.e. find a business model that embraces
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:38:06 -0600 (CST)
Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Marshall wrote:
Those sorts of percentages are common in Pareto distributions (AKA
Zipf's law AKA the 80-20 rule).
With the Zipf's exponent typical of web
On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
as long as humans are the primary consumers of
bandwidth.
This is an interesting phrase. Did you mean it T-I-C, or are you
speculating that M2M (machine-to-machine) communications will at some
point rival/overtake bandwidth
On Jan 20, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
It doesn't seem that the P2P
application developers are doing it, maybe because they don't care
because it doesn't directly impact them, or maybe because they don't
know how to. If squid could provide a traffic localising solution
which
is
Gadi Evron wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
snip
ISPs probably don't have an interest in BT caching because of 1)
cost of ownership, 2) legal concerns (if an ISP cached a publicly
distributed copy of some pirated software, who's then responsible?),
They cache the web,
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:51:08 -0800
Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 20, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
It doesn't seem that the P2P
application developers are doing it, maybe because they don't care
because it doesn't directly impact them, or maybe because they
On Jan 20, 2007, at 7:38 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
Maybe I haven't understood what that exactly does, however it seems to
me that's really just a bit-torrent client/server in the ADSL router.
Certainly having a bittorrent server in the ADSL router is unique, but
not really what I was getting at.
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007, Mark Smith wrote:
What I'm imagining (and I'm making some assumptions about how
bittorrent works) would be bittorrent super peer that :
Azereus already has functional 'proxy discovery' stuff. Its quite naive but
it does the job. The only implementation I know about is
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:47:04 -0800
Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
The advantage of providing caching services is that they both help
preserve scare resources and result in a more pleasing user
experience. As already pointed out, CAPEX/OPEX along with insertion
into
On Jan 20, 2007, at 8:10 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
I think you're more or less describing what already Akamai do -
they're
just not doing it for authorised P2P protocol distributed content
(yet?).
Yes, and P2P might make sense for them to explore - but a) it doesn't
help SPs smooth out
Thus spake Adrian Chadd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007, Charlie Allom wrote:
This is a pure example of a problem from the operational front
which
can be floated to research and the industry, with smarter solutions
than port blocking and QoS.
This is what I am interested/scared
Thus spake Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chances are that other torrent client authors are going to see
[BitThief] as major defiance and start implementing things like
filtering what client can connect to who based on the client name/ID
string (ex. uTorrent, Azureus, MainLine), which as we
Its not that hard a problem to get on top of. Caching, unfortunately,
continues to be viewed as anaethma by ISP network operators in the
US. Strangely enough the caching technologies aren't a problem with the
content -delivery- people.
if we enbrace p2p, today's heavy hitting bad users are
holy kook bait.
it's amazing after all these years, and companies, how
many people, and companies, still don't get it.
/rf
91 matches
Mail list logo
