The issue is use of dpi to eliminate congestion stemming from p2p's
natural unfairness behind the unbundling interface.
F.
Le 09-03-01 à 21:14, Jack Bates a écrit :
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
In short, the entire DPI debate is starting to go on similar lines,
and flogging similar horses
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
In short, the entire DPI debate is starting to go on similar lines,
and flogging similar horses, as the gun control debate
Yes, dpi has great, useful applications (ddos mitigation and other
security, for example). And it has bad / harmful applications
(dictatorship
In short, the entire DPI debate is starting to go on similar lines,
and flogging similar horses, as the gun control debate
Yes, dpi has great, useful applications (ddos mitigation and other
security, for example). And it has bad / harmful applications
(dictatorships doing dpi to catch political d
A reminder that political threads are prohibited from the mailing list
under the AUP.
Participants in the "DPI or Flow Management" might wish to move their
discussion to a more politically orientated forum such as the Network
Neutrality Squad mailing list:
http://www.nnsquad.o
On Mar 2, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
With regards to DDoS mitigation, it's sometimes necessary to go
above layers-3/-4 in the event of layer-7-targeted attacks.
In fact, it's sometimes important to have the ability to parse packet
payloads and/or interact with traffic in some
On Mar 2, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
There is no righteous purpose, period. Full Stop.
With regards to DDoS mitigation, it's sometimes necessary to go above
layers-3/-4 in the event of layer-7-targeted attacks.
-
> Yah. I like what Mike O'Dell said at
> http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/2009/03/sort/time_rev/page/1/entry/3:12/
>I admit to no debate on Deep Packet Inspection by ISPs,
>advertisers, or other assorted evesdroppers.
>It is very, very simple and as black-and-white as they com
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:39:24 +0900
Randy Bush wrote:
> > The emphasis, is the need to open the envelope to decide how to
> > route them...
>
> and more of my margin goes to the folk who make envelope openers. and
> this is a good thing? and it helps get the packets to the customer
> how?
>
>
> The emphasis, is the need to open the envelope to decide how to route
> them...
and more of my margin goes to the folk who make envelope openers. and
this is a good thing? and it helps get the packets to the customer how?
pfui!
randy
Its like the post office getting envolopes by the truckload, then
opening each envelope, read the content, to decide when to send the
opened letter for delivery, either by foot or car, claiming that such
a decision process will prevent envelopes from flooding the post
office, coming into the post
> -Original Message-
> From: Francois Menard [mailto:franc...@menards.ca]
> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 11:49 AM
> To: Lorell Hathcock
> Cc: 'nanog list'
> Subject: Re: DPI or Flow Management
>
> Its like the post office getting envolopes by the truck
l Hathcock
-Original Message-
From: Francois Menard [mailto:franc...@menards.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 3:51 PM
To: nanog list
Subject: DPI or Flow Management
The Coalition of Internet Service Providers has filed a substantial
contribution at the CRTC stating:
1) The CRTC should forb
t-il avoir également inclus une interprétation
française
aussi bien ?
Sincèrement,
Lorell Hathcock
-Original Message-
From: Francois Menard [mailto:franc...@menards.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 3:51 PM
To: nanog list
Subject: DPI or Flow Management
The Coalition of Internet Service
-Original Message-
From: Francois Menard [mailto:franc...@menards.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 3:51 PM
To: nanog list
Subject: DPI or Flow Management
The Coalition of Internet Service Providers has filed a substantial
contribution at the CRTC stating:
1) The CRTC should forbid
The Coalition of Internet Service Providers has filed a substantial
contribution at the CRTC stating:
1) The CRTC should forbid DPI, as it cannot be proven to be 98.5%
effective at trapping P2P, such as to guarantee congestion relief
2) The CRTC should allow for other forms of traffic manag
Francois Menard wrote:
> The Coalition of Internet Service Providers has filed a substantial
> contribution at the CRTC stating:
>
> 1) The CRTC should forbid DPI, as it cannot be proven to be 98.5%
> effective at trapping P2P, such as to guarantee congestion relief
>
> 2) The CRTC should allow f
16 matches
Mail list logo
