On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 03:13:42AM +0000, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
According to http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossi... Comcast's blocking affects connections to non-Comcast users. This means that they're trying to manage their upstream connections, not the local loop.
Disagree - despite Comcast's size, there's more "Internet" outside of them than on-net. Even with decent knobs, these devices are more blunt instruments than anyone would like. See my previous comments regarding allowing the on-net to on-net (or within region, or whatever BGP community you use...) such that transfers with better RTT to complete quicker. Everyone who is commenting on "This tracker/client does $foo to behave" is missing the point - would one rather have the traffic snooped further to see if such and such tracker/client is in use? And pay for the admin overhead required to keep those non-automatable lists updated? Adrian hit it on the head regarding the generations of kittens romping free... While I expect end-users to miss the boat that providers use stat-mux calculations to build and price their networks, I'm floored to see the sentiment on NANOG. No edge provider of geographic scope/scale will survive if 1:1 ratios were built and priced accordingly. Perhaps the M&A colonialism era is coming to a close and smaller, regional nation- states... erm last-mile providers will be the entities to grow with satisfied customers? Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE