North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Comcast blocking p2p uploads

  • From: Jeroen Massar
  • Date: Fri Oct 19 17:25:48 2007
  • Openpgp: id=333E7C23

Curtis Doty wrote:
> It would be sad if one of the leaders in deploying IPv6 was now
> motivated to maintain the status-quo; with its IPv4 RST meddling
> "feature". :-(

Which "Leaders in deploying IPv6"? They are only deploying IPv6 for
their management infrastructure, thus internally and not for their

Just to show how 'deployed' it is:

Prefix:    2001:558::/32
Name:      COMCAST6NET
Allocated: 2003-01-06
Seen:      *NEVER*

That stuff is the same PR crap as Verizon with:

Note the:
"The deployment, expected to be completed during the next 18 months,
will permit companies to fully integrate to IPv6,..."

Nice PR, but no cheese yet, but at least now they are pretty much
committed to actually do it ;)

Really, don't claim that something is deploying IPv6 until you see
"IPv6" as a feature on the product pages and you can actually really get
it and traceroute it globally...

As for the RST's, this just shows again that things like IPSEC or
otherwise protected packet sending are the way to go and ISP's show not
be stating that you have "unlimited traffic" but simply provide the user
with a real limit. Then it is clear what you are buying and when you go
over that limit THEN limit the endpoint to 5kbit/s so that they at least
can go to the "you reached your limit, do your leeching next month".

And I am pretty sure that technically simply ratelimitting (or simply
shutting them down completely or sending them to a sandbox) after they
hit the traffic limit is much more efficient than trying to figure out
what is and what is not "illegal" or "bulky" traffic. It is only
complicating the wee job that an ISP really have to do: gain nothing.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature