North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: FW: Re: Is there a line of defense against Distributed Reflective attacks?
- From: Al Rowland
- Date: Wed Jan 22 12:31:58 2003
Not to mention that fact that 99.99% of current consumer connections are
not up to the task. Standard full-screen video digital stream is ~6Mbps,
HDTV requires 19.4Mbps. Don't know many consumers with T3s. ;)
As always, it gets down to doing the math, something may dot bombers
weren't (aren't) very good at. AOL/Time Warner is just the first major
example of this 'not yet ready for prime time' business plan. Not to
mention the effect everyone on AOL going to broadband and downloading
Disney clips all the time would have on their settlement plans with
When fiber-to-the-curb is the norm we'll be able to 'Ride the Light'
Until then, your mileage may vary. You might also see some change in
settlement plans and consumer pricing about that same time.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
> Behalf Of Vadim Antonov
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:51 PM
> To: todd glassey
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: FW: Re: Is there a line of defense against
> Distributed Reflective attacks?
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, todd glassey wrote:
> > Vadim - the instant someone sues a Provider for sexual
> harassment from
> > their spam epidemic you will start to see things change. The reason
> > that No-Sane provider will block these ports or services is because
> > they have been listening to their Network Admins too long,
> We were talking about P2P, not spam. P2P participants _want_
> to talk to each other, unlike spammer and his victims. ISPs
> already agressively fight spammers by termninating their
> service completely - no port blocking or lawsuits are needed.
> Blocking ports is not going to prevent communication between
> parties which wish to communicate. And carriage of bits is
> about an order of magintude bigger economically than the
> whole entertaintment industry. RIAA already was stupid
> enough to make enemies of telcos (with that Verizon lawsut).
> The tech industry was bending themselves over to court
> Hollywood because the common wisdom was that the content is
> going to be what people will pay for. Wrong. Content-based
> dotcoms died, and people still pay for Internet connectivity,
> in ever-increasing numbers. And spend more and more time in
> front of computers instead of TVs. Simply because live
> people on the other end of the wire are infinitely more
> interesting than the prechewed corporate crud called "content".
> So I think we'll see some fireworks on the legal front, but
> the outcome is already clear - unfiltered connectivity is
> what consumers wish to pay for, not the sanitized disneys.