On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
So DOCSIS has a technical limitation which may or may not apply. This is reasonable justification for limiting upstream bandwidth, not for specifying that users can't run servers. If users can run servers effectively in
Thus spake "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> the
limited available upstream bandwidth, then there is no _technical_ reason to prevent them.
I think people are being sloppy about saying no servers on certain types of networks.
Sloppy? IMHO it's completely intentional. Most consumer/residential AUPs explicitly ban running any sort of server -- you have to pay more for that "privledge".
I think the actual requirement is for a long-term end-to-end identifier for systems, and maybe even network users, before they can do certain activities on the network so you can trace or block the system. Systems without long-term unique end-to-end identifiers would only be able to do a limited number of things because they are essentially fungible.
You're talking about the complete death of anonymity... This also touches on a fundamental problem with IP -- its addresses are both locators and identifiers.
If you want to spend about $50/month for a static IP address for your DSL line, then the question becomes should you be able to send mail directly from your home server with a static IP address on a DSL line until abused? No need to buy another box, find a colo or figure out how to remotely administer another system or tunnel to it to send mail.
Some ISPs block or intercept all outbound traffic on port 25 unless you register your mail server (for free). Given the amount of spam coming from virus-infected PCs these days, I have a tough time arguing with that. S Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin