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 chance of being illegal content. <snip>
The result of these items already been shown: BT encryption. I personally know of 3 individuals who have their client to use en- cryption only (disabling non-encrypted connection support). For security? Nope -- solely because their ISP uses a rate limiting device.
Yep. Users will find a way to maintain functionality.
Bram Cohen's official statement is that using encryption to get around this "is silly" because "not many ISPs are implementing such devices" (maybe not *right now*, Bram, but in the next year or two, they likely will):
I don't know of many user ISPs which don't implement them, you kidding?:) <snip>
So my question is this: how exactly do we (as administrators of systems or networks) get companies, managers, and even other administrators, to think differently about solving this?
-- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |