A Legal Blow to File-Sharing

[lada]

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 ?

[lada]

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.

[lada]

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 )

[lada]

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

[Nilsen]

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.

[Vulcan]

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.

[lada]

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 ?

[JB73]

AHHHRGGHH

my thread has been attacked by the techno-uber-geeks!!


EEEEK!!!



LMAO you guys are so over my head it is embarrasing