|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:06:19 -0600 From: Sean Figgins <sean@labrats.us> To: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org> In-Reply-To: <4719059A.9030407@rockynet.com> Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu Mike Lewinski wrote: > I wonder what happens to these network police appliances (Sandvine, > Packeteer etc) when the P2Ps implement encryption and tunnel it all over > 443/tcp? Most vendors claim to be able to look into the payload and determine that it is p2p traffic instead of http/https traffic. I know I have looked at several of these vendors myself, and most of them did not have hardware that was even safe or reasonable to deploy, as certain traffic would send the unit's CPU towards 100% with only a measly 1 megabit of traffic. I personally eliminated on of these vendors from consideration this way. Sandvine seemed to have a pretty decent hardware solution when I was still in that space 2 years ago, with only a few concerns. I'm sure that they have vastly improved. They were also less "religious" about 99% of the internet traffic being p2p, like some vendors were. Still, while I support the ISP's right to manage and shapre traffic, I still think this is a poor tactic. This is like your telephone company hanging up your call, regardles if the content of the call was a drug deal, a call to grandma, or a call to e911. It's just not morally right. -Sean Sorry about the double post. (Please respond only through the list)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |