Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB73 on June 27, 2005, 01:41:24 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050627/ap_en_bu/scotus_file_sharing_24
i know there are many here on both sides of the issue... whatever side you take fine, this i think though is not good.
as mentioned in the article, the lower courts used a ruling about VCR's for their judgment. it is a legitimate precident i think.
now that grokster, kazaa, and whatever can be sued, i doubt any of them will be around long considering the ultra deep pockets of the recording corporations.
one must ask then, if you develop a revolutionary piece of software like bit torrent, should you bother showing it off? will you get sued because of possible infractions people may or may not do with your product?
it sounds shockingly similar to suing gun makers for something a person did with a gun. it is just not right.
i only see this as holding back development of software, and communication on the internet
to fix link... thanks
-
The link above did not work for me. I found an alternate http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050627/ap_en_bu/scotus_file_sharing_24 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050627/ap_en_bu/scotus_file_sharing_24)
-
Originally posted by JB73
i only see this as holding back development of software, and communication on the internet
This will hold back the development of software whos sole purpose (or at least 90%+ as many studies show) is to illegally share copyrighted material. I agree.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
This will hold back the development of software whos sole purpose (or at least 90%+ as many studies show) is to illegally share copyrighted material. I agree.
It also starts down a path where devices such as an iPod are illegal, and the RIAA has complete control over how you purchase and play your music, ie a total monopoly is restored.
-
It would tickle me pink to see all of this come to an end. Much more bandwidth available for real work.
Woohoo!
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It would tickle me pink to see all of this come to an end. Much more bandwidth available for real work.
Woohoo!
Are you saying 90% of internet traffic is illegal file sharing skuzzy ;)
-
I think Skuzzy means illegal file sharing and not this BBS. :D
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
I think Skuzzy means illegal file sharing and not this BBS. :D
The question is ... Is the internet a mechanism that allows illegal file sharing and the bypassing of encryption which is also illegal in the DMCA, and what proportion of internet traffic is this?
-
I cannot tell you. I do not knot know. All I know is when the kids are out of school, Internet bandwidth is used up at a horrific rate.
And when I talk to my neices and nephews, all they do is chat with friends and download music all day long (yeah, they are stealing, but thier parents don't care).
It really hits the overseas connections hard as that bandwidth is fixed and it can take years to increase it.
The Internet only has a finite amount of bandwidth. It is possible to bring it to a crawl on a world-wide basis, pretty easily.
-
SUE THE INTARDNET! Yeah, I could see the RIAA doing that.
-
Originally posted by SOB
SUE THE INTARDNET! Yeah, I could see the RIAA doing that.
LOL, make it a class action, we can all get in on it!
eskimo
-
is there any other use for this type of software other than sharing files?
-
I don't think it will have much of an impact--a US court ruling won't have any effect outside our borders, and borders don't mean much on the Internet.
J_A_B
-
Not really, although I suppose some of them have rudimentary chat built in. As far as LEGAL downloads, yes. I used Bittorrent to download the BF2 demo when I couldn't get it at any reasonable speed from anywhere else. Of course, I believe that's the first legal download I've used Bittorrent for, not counting when I've downloaded music from CDs I owned but were too scratched up to play.
-
The only thing this will change is that those companies will move to say... China. I'd like to see a US court try & sue something there... I'm already pointing my finger and laughing.
-
Maybe when the US to China music file sharing takes up all of the overseas bandwidth to/from the US and you can't connect to the AH server you will better understand the problem.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It would tickle me pink to see all of this come to an end. Much more bandwidth available for real work.
Woohoo!
Thats what i do not understand.
As someone whos working around Inet infrastructure i love ipp2p (http://www.ipp2p.org/) and im dreaming about droping all P2P packets. It seems to me, that most of broadband providers realize it and they are trying to remove P2P from their networks.
However i understand, why we, providers, mind P2P. Its just rubish. But i do not realy understand, why should goverment listen some lobotomized lobist and make laws for their needs.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
The only thing this will change is that those companies will move to say... China. I'd like to see a US court try & sue something there... I'm already pointing my finger and laughing.
That remind me those emails.... according to U.S. law No.5263463 muhahahaa
they usualy do not respond if i write to them in our official language :D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It really hits the overseas connections hard as that bandwidth is fixed and it can take years to increase it.
The Internet only has a finite amount of bandwidth. It is possible to bring it to a crawl on a world-wide basis, pretty easily.
If you will increase world wide bandwidth, you will only increase amounth of transferet data trough P2P. Its not solution.
IMO it absolutly doesnt matter how fast lines are regarding P2P.
-
I agree lada. It would be nice if all ISP's would just block P2P altogether. It really is destructive to the quality of service for all ISP's.
-
(http://www.pogbird.com/X45/pipe.jpg)
for not using a bigger pipe when he invented the internet... dang dems
-
what i find kind of funny is how the internet was originally developed to share information and files....
though alot of P2P is "illegal" swapping of files, it is still at the core of the internet's purpose from what i see in a general sence.
what i would argue is that the P2P systems have helped the distribution of data, through various ways, and routes. the ability to search up an item, find it, download it, has opened a new way to think about sharing resources.
the fact that now you can DL from various sources and piece it together on your end was a major leap in the spread of information i think.
use that same technology for research, finding obscure articles, so on, without those people developing the basics of software like that, where would we be?
i dont think you can deny the good impact they have had on the way information in general is found and transfered. unfortunatly in my opinion this legal decision only helps to hinder the development of the sharing of information.
-
I'd like to know how many people have the internet, JUST for downloading music, and to contact people through messenger or whatnot.
Maybe thats why they don't block P2P??:confused:
-
Grokster had it coming. They practically adverstised the fact that the software would make music and videos available to the user and do it for free.
It was only a matter of time.
OTOH, BitTorrent is in a much better position. They have demonstrated that there are legitimate uses for this software.
P2P will never die. ;)
-
Originally posted by parker00
is there any other use for this type of software other than sharing files?
Moviefone.com uses it to deliver high-res trailers.
-
Originally posted by parker00
is there any other use for this type of software other than sharing files?
sharing files is what the internet is designed for.
medical files, legal files, books, research, whatever. the users choose to share what they want. there is the option to share text files, pdf's, all that. not many do it, but it is an option.
-
It would be trivial to kill. You guys need to be grateful the government does not know how easy it would be to do, or the RIAA.
Do not ask me to explain how. Just know it could be done, and done quite easily (relatively speaking).
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It would be trivial to kill. You guys need to be grateful the government does not know how easy it would be to do, or the RIAA.
Do not ask me to explain how. Just know it could be done, and done quite easily (relatively speaking).
could you at least give us the uber technical description of this, that only a person who invented a primitive form of the internet with his mothers garden hoses in 1862 would understand?
-
File sharing has been there since... almost the beginning (nntp) ... it's just more "easy" to do now. I personaly have no problems with it... yes, I still buy CDs (bought two today as a matter of fact), but I no longer have to buy a full album when I only like one or to songs.
Oh and Mikey, I have no problems connecting to AH, maybe you should move to France :p
-
There are 2 terms...
1. file sharing.. when you need to post some files and you expect that others will download them
2. file sharing... when some retard download 100 Gb of ISOs and when you ask him... heya Dude, you downloaded a lot of data, can i copy something from you ? .. he just say... ahh you know... non of those images are complete.. i just wasted 100 Gb of transfer capacity... we need faster line i i can waste it faster
P2P is not baad idea. But in hand of lobotomized retards it became crown of internet anarchy.
[ lets see if some of MP is P2P fun and he will take it personaly ;) ]
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It would be trivial to kill. You guys need to be grateful the government does not know how easy it would be to do, or the RIAA.
Do not ask me to explain how. Just know it could be done, and done quite easily (relatively speaking).
Don't forget to include shutting down irc. It's still one of the easiest places to find warez, mp3s.. anything really.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
could you at least give us the uber technical description of this, that only a person who invented a primitive form of the internet with his mothers garden hoses in 1862 would understand?
Precision bombing and ball bearings.
-
I wouldnt be surprised if some of these p2p's dont become created by anonymous software writers. They don't seem that hard to create being as there are so many. Kinda hard to hold someone responsible if you don't know who they are.
-
I deliberately did not say how it could be done, as I do not want to be the one to let the cat out of the bag, for free. If they want to know, they can call me and pay me a contractor fee for the information.
Suffice it to say, it would cost them a lot less and be a lot less troublesome for them to shut it off, if they had a clue.
Be grateful they don't.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I deliberately did not say how it could be done, as I do not want to be the one to let the cat out of the bag, for free. If they want to know, they can call me and pay me a contractor fee for the information.
Suffice it to say, it would cost them a lot less and be a lot less troublesome for them to shut it off, if they had a clue.
Be grateful they don't.
You should patent the idea and sell it to the RIAA.
-
The problem is that filesharing is like whack-a-mole. Hit one on the head and two more pop up.
All this decision really does is open up a huge can of worms for other areas (DVD and CD burners for a start).
My guess is skuzzy is thinking about preventing users from hosting ports at all. IE don't allow inbound service requests to dsl/cable/dialup users, block tcp syn packets to non-business users or non-static IP's.
Most ISPs have a clause for home users stating they cannot "host servers". Therefore the only legitimate traffic should be outbound service requests (ie web browsing etc). So in theory you should only ever be making outbound tcp syn requests and not receiving inbound tcp syn requests.
However, I'm not sure how UDP fits into this equation. I doubt an ISP could block UDP and it would not take long for someone to build a reliable layer on top of UDP. I'd give your average Linuxware geeks about half a day ;)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I deliberately did not say how it could be done, as I do not want to be the one to let the cat out of the bag, for free. If they want to know, they can call me and pay me a contractor fee for the information.
Suffice it to say, it would cost them a lot less and be a lot less troublesome for them to shut it off, if they had a clue.
Be grateful they don't.
Dont think it will ever be done no matter how easy it is.
Cause you just know while the recording industry may be helping to line the right hand pockets of politicians tp pass more strict laws about file sharing you can bet your bippy there are people on the other side of the fence stuffing money in the left hand pocket.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
^^ Somebody gag this man and attach him to a pole!!!
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
My guess is skuzzy is thinking about preventing users from hosting ports at all. IE don't allow inbound service requests to dsl/cable/dialup users, block tcp syn packets to non-business users or non-static IP's.
Most ISPs have a clause for home users stating they cannot "host servers". Therefore the only legitimate traffic should be outbound service requests (ie web browsing etc). So in theory you should only ever be making outbound tcp syn requests and not receiving inbound tcp syn requests.
However, I'm not sure how UDP fits into this equation. I doubt an ISP could block UDP and it would not take long for someone to build a reliable layer on top of UDP. I'd give your average Linuxware geeks about half a day ;)
I used to play with snort and "special event trigger" some 2 years ago. Its quite simple... match rule and trigger.
So all you have to know is, how to reconize P2P packet and then simply send reset from the middle to both sides :D
Actualy IP2PP have a bit similary aproach. Check link i posted above and yo will find that blocking UDP is not unreal.
Lets use less irritating terminology Vulcan.... Identify P2P UDP is not unreal :)
-
Ohh its practicaly possible and its easy to do it.
http://www.ipp2p.org
http://l7-filter.sourceforge.net/ (i found this one now, i will test it on some friends in near future :D )
death to emreee... i mean P2P.. :P
-
sure but 95% of users will be gone.
Stop with phylosofi and try it in reality.
How many people will keen searching some P2P if 3rd software doesnt work ? :D
I used to try in one small network.. cca 100 homes and it eliminated 99% of P2P.
Non of users were inventing or searching something better. Home users are simply lame w/o skill.
baaa baaa baaa it doesnt work . buuuuuu buuuu...
thats all they can do :D
So it realy doesnt matter if someone will develope new protocol, because boarder firewall will be patched much faster that their software.
-
lol .... providers doesnt try to block P2P.
All they are trying to do is to manage bandwidth. Once they will want to block P2P, it will be gone.
Non of them have balls to block it and announce it, because they are not sure, if other ISP will do the same or if they will take " advantige" from that.
However 2 of 3 biggest operators here already done it.
edit.: yes both of them implemented this new feature silently
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
P2P will be gone? In your dreams.
man you beat me with this argument. i see that you have quite good overview about IP networks....
hmm ok
-
Did you even read and understand article, whitch i posted ?
edit: yeah filtering Viruses on firewalls is quite common.... If you have some extra $20.000, you can buy one at http://www.checkpoint.com/
Vulcan might have some tips ?
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
Yes, and viruses are still getting through. More new viruses are being made now than ever before. Thanks for proving my point.
ummm you speak about popular things from media w/o understanding background.
And i guess that you also use windows :cool:
edit:
Now tell me this Lada: Name one, ONE victory for the legislative branch or ISP's against "malicious" internet use. Just one will do. Btw. "victory" in this case is defined by us having less of it now than we had yesterday.
Scroll back on the first page and look at my notes about legislative and P2P.
Every single company over here included into contract with customer, that they can disconnect him if his presence will make troubles with services for other users.
This mean: If you will messing around infrastructure devices, you will be disconected.
if your presence will make service useless for other costumers, then you will be disconected.
So basilacy. if some tard turn on P2P or he get some virus and start to open 1000`s of connection every minute, then they can simply disconnect you. All they need is 2 costumers who will complain that their services is somehow slow.
Why should be goverment bothered with P2P ? We are not police state nor pradise of lobist. We are paradise of cartels :rofl
-
Whats a virus?
Sorry, im a Mac user, so its not a problem for me. What do these "viruses" do?
:lol
-
Viruses and P2P have nothing to do with each other and use completely unrelated delivery mechanisms.
Again, it would be trivial to shut down P2P and there is nothing developers could do to stop it or circumvent it.
When bringing up legislative actions, that is where things fall apart. Governments are too ignorant to understand how to effectively deal with this. They make a huge display of ignorance everytime they try to deal with anything Internet related.
If they ever get past that ignorance....ahhhh who am I kidding, they will never get past it.
-
When the computer generation is old enough then maybe. Alot of the teens today has alot of knowledge, so there is hope.
Lets say they get into polics... 30-40 years from now?
-
I think you have to have a frontal lobotomy to go into politics. It is probably one of the laws they have written to protect themselves from intelligence creeping into thier world.
-
Find a teenager that hasnt had a frontal lobotomy. :p
They are all nutts.
-
Nilsen, saying that is the 1st signs of being an old git ... watch it!!!
PS: Lada, I guess you missed the other thread where I tried 4 times to get you to email me... please do so, as I'm comming to CZ this summer.
PPS: NO DATES WITH NUNS THIS TIME, OK???? :D
-
Old gits tends to have more money than teens and I cant really even pretend to be a teen anymore so i guess ill be content with beeing an old geezer :)
-
Hack to thier hearts content, it can be shut down and no piece of software in the world could make it work again. Don't worry though. It will not happen. Ignorance in government will keep it alive.
SPAM could be shut down as well, but it would take longer. Probably a few months, at least, due to how long it has been allowed to fester. Don't worry though. It will not happen. Ignorance in government will keep it alive.
-
Why should I give away what would never be used anyway?
If done properly, no legitimate net traffic would be effected. I have already written the white paper on the topic and have the design done.
For me, it was an exercise in engineering. I like stuff like that.
-
No desire to sell it. The effort would frustrate me to no end. I have been down that road before.
-
I do not give away my ideas. No point in it.
Someone else would take it, run with it, and really piss me off.
-
Ideas even if just remotly brilliant should be kept close to heart. I have many..
..mabe not so brilliant but then i dont keep them close to heart either :)
or do I?
I have "invented" one thing related to this topic, but its just an idea that i may or may not be able to realise (see my thread on wanting to learn more about networks). No hurry tho, cause its so brilliant i doubt anyone will ever think of it.
I have lost myself
what?
-
All I can say is that it ivolves using e-mail to make money.
-
There should be a rule here that protects intelectual property... :o
Falifan: You have mail
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
I do? What addy?
Doesnt matter... all your addys are belong to me!
harrr..
-
Got it :)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Alot of the teens today......
Waaaaaat ?? One more time and i put Jihad on you :D ..
I love it when some granny trying to teach me about computers :D
j/k
-
Originally posted by lada
Did you even read and understand article, whitch i posted ?
edit: yeah filtering Viruses on firewalls is quite common.... If you have some extra $20.000, you can buy one at http://www.checkpoint.com/
Vulcan might have some tips ?
Sonicwall TZ150, under NZ$1000 now (~$700US) with gateway AntiVirus, Intrusion Prevention, Gateway-Antispyware, Content Filtering, and ViewPoint Stats/Log Reporting.
Goes right through to the Pro 5060, which is a 6 x Gigabit Port model.
Plus theres options from Netscreen (Juniper, 5GT range) and Fortinet (although Fortinet is pretty crappy).
-
Originally posted by lada
I used to play with snort and "special event trigger" some 2 years ago. Its quite simple... match rule and trigger.
So all you have to know is, how to reconize P2P packet and then simply send reset from the middle to both sides :D
Actualy IP2PP have a bit similary aproach. Check link i posted above and yo will find that blocking UDP is not unreal.
Lets use less irritating terminology Vulcan.... Identify P2P UDP is not unreal :)
Yes but when you're dealing with routing backbones of up to 2.6Tbps (which is what a Juniper TX Matrix will do) its pretty hard to put packet sniffing in place. Hell even for an entry level M10i Router, which is a 12Gbps baby there is no practical "off the shelf" packet sniffing solution to put next to it.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Whats a virus?
Sorry, im a Mac user, so its not a problem for me. What do these "viruses" do?
:lol
Its those things you can't detect as a Mac user, just like the 20 odd keyloggers and other spyware applications out there ;)
How are your widgets these days...
Just like the Mac never "BSOD"s LOL.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Its those things you can't detect as a Mac user, just like the 20 odd keyloggers and other spyware applications out there ;)
How are your widgets these days...
Just like the Mac never "BSOD"s LOL.
blah blah blah lol :D
no widgets for me, i run panther not tiger
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Yes but when you're dealing with routing backbones of up to 2.6Tbps (which is what a Juniper TX Matrix will do) its pretty hard to put packet sniffing in place. Hell even for an entry level M10i Router, which is a 12Gbps baby there is no practical "off the shelf" packet sniffing solution to put next to it.
You better keep playing with Tsssss and leave that job to guys who play with Gssss...
pfffeeeee you dont have to do everyting in the core do you ? :)
Even from political point of view let everyone decide his rules, nobody likes central rules ;)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
blah blah blah lol :D
no widgets for me, i run panther not tiger
poor Africa .... you bloody fashion moron :D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
No desire to sell it. The effort would frustrate me to no end. I have been down that road before.
What did you do? Test it on Pakistan? :) lol
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/06/28/pakistan.internet.reut/index.html
Internet crashes in Pakistan
-
Originally posted by lada
poor Africa .... you bloody fashion moron :D
I never liked stripes, they make me look fat.
-
man you beat me with this argument. i see that you have quite good overview about IP networks....
The day p2p will be blocked from any given network, that network will lose 90% of its clients. Who needs broadband if you have no use for it.
Every coin has two sides.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
The day p2p will be blocked from any given network, that network will lose 90% of its clients. Who needs broadband if you have no use for it.
Every coin has two sides.
They will always find new content to fill up the bandwith with. TV channels, games and other stuff.
-
If they have no place to go, then what? 90% is a bit high, me thinks. 10% maybe, and that could be a high number. Of course, I cannot comment on the status of this outside of the U.S.
AOL is the largest ISP in the U.S. for a reason.
And for every one of them that drop off, it simply means the ISP will net more profit.
-
Yup
I know from here that most of the people i know (adults that pay for the broadband) that they are not in it for P2P but for business, news, radio, entertainment, games, email etc etc. Alot of kids are in it for P2P but they would not stop using the internet (that their parents payed for) if it went away.
Peronally i dont give a toss about P2P, not that i never use it but i could manage well without, and i would sertainly not cancel my broadband if it went away.
-
Originally posted by lada
You better keep playing with Tsssss and leave that job to guys who play with Gssss...
pfffeeeee you dont have to do everyting in the core do you ? :)
Even from political point of view let everyone decide his rules, nobody likes central rules ;)
Centralisation means consolidation, which means cheaper solutions. However, even a simple Gigabit packet sniffing solution is not cheap.
Lada, you might play with a bit Cisco gear, but don't try and BS me about what you do and don't know about.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
The day p2p will be blocked from any given network, that network will lose 90% of its clients. Who needs broadband if you have no use for it.
Every coin has two sides.
Not true..... as someone who have access to statistics, i can tell you, that it will affect only 5% of people, but they consume up to 60% of bandwidth.
The only one problem is, that competitors could use it in advetisment.
"Look look they deny you something... baaad baad ISP they are... We are cool you can download all you need."
Lame users are afraid to be limited, because they are lames, so it work even if 95% of them will never try any P2P.
Any other theory ?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Lada, you might play with a bit Cisco gear, but don't try and BS me about what you do and don't know about.
I dont know much about T backbones, i never saw them.
But im sure that we will not see any IP filters on them in near future. Since they have their own problems with plain routing of packets.
Well if you never ever saw Snort or some other L7 filtering toys on Gbsp network, then you probably didnt see everything did you ?
Last month i were messing around project.
Firewall cluster with expected load of 2.5Gb/s. That firewall cluster provide HTTP filtering, SMTP filtering, FTP filtering, SSL hub + classsic l4,3 firewalling. If you still thing that connection inspecion is immposible in Gbps networks, let me know why please.
No centralized rules are impossible, since internet is not centralized network.
Consolided rules ... you mean like all big ISP shall implement those rules. Lets say that midsize ISP should be filtering ? Do you think that it could be cheaper that provide filtering as close to the last mile as possible ?
Now you might tell how did i confuse you before. I realy didnt get it this time.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
They will always find new content to fill up the bandwith with. TV channels, games and other stuff.
Thats Ok problem is not with bandwidth. Problem is with way how they use it. I described it before. I had a friend and he downloaded 100Gb a month. So i called him.. heya dude do you have something interesting ?
ummm you know... non of those CD are complete.....
ohh.. whaat ? You wanna say that you transfered 100Gb and you have nothing ?
... umm yeah... i have 2 films but their quality sux.
And i also guess that some 60%-70% data on P2P is porn. I used to have warez FTP few years ago and it was exactly the same. 70% of all downloads were just xxx.
Well Nilsen so its ok when sombody buy game or movie via internet and download 20Gb/ a month ...
But when some morons transfer 50Gb for 3 ISOs, then it might be considered as a problem.
Got my point ? (i hope so, coz there is not -40 deg. anymore :D )
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
I believe some sort of ISP "union" would be a violation of US anti-trust laws.
ISP union is running local National peering center. They are almost everywhere.
http://www.euro-ix.net/isp/choosing/search/ixp_info.php?ixp_id=39
But they have some other things to do :)
-
Lol, i got your point lada but thats not what i meant excacty
Im talking about ISP providers and other companies providing content to make use of the freed bandwith. Like many TV stations here and ISP providers offer TV broadcasts, movies, telephony and internet on one line.
Im guessing it wont take many years before _all_ services are offered digitaly through one fiber line to your house.
-
Originally posted by lada
I dont know much about T backbones, i never saw them.
But im sure that we will not see any IP filters on them in near future. Since they have their own problems with plain routing of packets.
Well if you never ever saw Snort or some other L7 filtering toys on Gbsp network, then you probably didnt see everything did you ?
Last month i were messing around project.
Firewall cluster with expected load of 2.5Gb/s. That firewall cluster provide HTTP filtering, SMTP filtering, FTP filtering, SSL hub + classsic l4,3 firewalling. If you still thing that connection inspecion is immposible in Gbps networks, let me know why please.
No centralized rules are impossible, since internet is not centralized network.
Consolided rules ... you mean like all big ISP shall implement those rules. Lets say that midsize ISP should be filtering ? Do you think that it could be cheaper that provide filtering as close to the last mile as possible ?
Now you might tell how did i confuse you before. I realy didnt get it this time.
Lada you just don't get it... 2.5Gbps is nothing amazing in terms of packet inspection functionality. 2.5Gbps is the sort of requirement you'd see for a medium sized business (300-500 seat), not a telco/isp.
I deal with 2 types of IDP solutions, both have multigigabit clustering functionality. However, to build a solution to sniff an ISPs core would be extremely expensive. You need solutions that move towards 20Gbps sniffing capabilities and upwards for small ISPs, for big ISPs you need to move into Terabit solutions - and thats not going to happen
See what I mean? You're talking Gbps functionality, I'm talking Tbps functionality. You're off the mark by a factor of 1000.
-
I have strange feeling, from your post Vulcan, that we want to say same thing... but its 1 AM here so i will try to go trough it again after sweet sleep. :cool
btw when Skuzzy wrote "me think" i took it as personal attack for several times... but he use it all the time.... I trough that "me think" is kinda chinese english ... but now i fear that it probably not ... they used to teach us just "i think" ...wtf is correct ? :D
-
AHHHRGGHH
my thread has been attacked by the techno-uber-geeks!!
EEEEK!!!
LMAO you guys are so over my head it is embarrasing