>
> Probably because of blocking at the origin point, such as corporate net-mgrs
> trying to prevent bandwidth hogs or liability issues.
>
Sure but my point is, that unless you run your private p2p network somewhere
which is not connected to the internet, you�ll end up with similar figures because
these "net-mgrs" will be out there doing their thing and there is nothing you can do
about them doing it.
Pete
>
> Rubens
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Petri Helenius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jack Bates"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Richard A Steenbergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Peter Galbavy"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mike Lyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Simon
> Lyall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tony Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "North
> American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 6:08 PM
> Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
>
>
> |
> | > Well, most p2p apps live on well-known ports, and Cisco's QOS mechanism
> | > allows easy classification on ports. Yes, most of the p2p apps are
> | > port-agile -- but only if they are completely blocked. My experience is
> | > that if you let the p2p stuff through, it'll stick to its default port
> and
> | > you can police with impunity.
> |
> | Our data shows that between 30% and 50% of p2p data flows on
> "non-standard"
> | ports if you run an unblocked environment.
> |
> | Pete
> |
>
>
