On Wed, 2006-22-03 at 12:48 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Wednesday 22 March 2006 03:59, Mike McCarty wrote: > > > >>Florin Andrei wrote: > >> > >>[snip] > >> > >> > >>>2. Some ISPs, especially in the US, _do_ restrict BitTorrent > >>>In some cases, it's a layer 3 limiter which can be evaded by > >>>shifting ports. In other cases it's a layer 4 limiter which usually > >>>cannot be evaded by shifting ports, and may or may not be evaded by > >>>encrypted clients. > >>>If that's the case, take your business elsewhere and make sure to > >>>let the former ISP know why you're leaving them. > >> > >>If I were your ISP, I'd be glad to see your backside. > >> > >>This attitude is part of why I said I'm philosophicaly opposed to > >>BitTorrent. > >> > > > > Why? Properly done, it doesn't make their data traffic any worse, in > > fact less "peaky". I'm seeding both the cd's and the dvd of FC5 right > > [snip] > > Untrue. Are you claiming to be a load balancing expert? I've worked > in telecom, and what you claim is untrue. On most systems the > backward link has much lower capacity than the forward link, and > having a bunch of people uploading rather than downloading > saturates the link. It amounts to a DOS attack on other users of > the link. I have been doing this along time too, and this only applies if the back haul technology is asymmetrical. In many cases you are right, because asymmetrical technology is normally leveraged to provide more available BW for DL since that is where the largest percentage of average users require it, however most servers have the opposite requirements. I can not remember when we have ever had a back bone connection that was not symmetrical, but we have had implementations where we used asymmetrical technology to provide back haul for remote wireless or dialup services. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
