On 5-Apr-2006, at 12:16, Michel Py wrote:
Of anywhere where ISPs offer a package with static IP addresses. I
mean
a survey of regular customers, not fellow IETFers or geek buddies. How
many of them actually have multiple static IPs and how many are behind
NAT nevertheless. Run your survey and come back with data.
I was under the impression that *you* were the one making assertions
about user behaviour. I don't necessarily disagree with them.
However, asking other people to do surveys to confirm your assertions
(with the implication that people who can't be bothered to do those
surveys somehow aren't fit to disagree) seems more like an exercise
in rhetoric than in engineering.
On 5-Apr-2006, at 11:09, Michel Py wrote:
[...] Do a survey of customers who have the
"advanced" or "pro" package (with higher speed and multiple static IP
addresses) and you will find that the very vast majority of them
(if not
all) use NAT anyway even though they have enough public addresses.
[...] By far, the volume of traffic is
peer-to-peer (mostly questionable in terms of copyright). All major
P2P
apps for the most widely used protocols (bittorrent, edonkey etc)
cross
NAT nicely, most have UPNP support (no configuration of the NAT
box) and
some even have external NAT traversal mechanisms that don't even
require
to open a port. Breaking games an other low-volume apps serves no
purpose.
When ISPs want to curb traffic, they either: cap the speed, have
monthly
quotas, or (rarely, as it will result in loss of business) enforce
their
AUP.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf