[ NNSquad ] Re: Comments on NNSquad Purpose

["Robb Topolski" <robb@funchords.com>]

> From: Nick Weaver
> Also, one key feature, encrypted torrents, is not about noninfringing
> uses.   For noninfringing traffic, you BENEFIT from having the traffic
> being analyzeable by the ISP, because it means the ISP could set up
> some very very cool caching strategies.

Which ones have done this, for example?

The reason some BitTorrent developers added MSE/PE was because some ISP's
were blocking the protocol completely, not to prevent a lower
prioritization.  MSE/PE is an optional extension to the protocol, and
connections are initiated unencrypted by applications that follow the
BitTorrent reference code.

First, the ISPs dropped the BitTorrent handshake packets, and PE was born.

Then the ISPs started dropping the BitTorrent transport piece requests, and
MSE was born.  

The current encryption is a 1:1 cipher, and now the ISPs are counting the
bytes within packets, abusing RST to drop the connections of those that fit
a certain pattern in the number of bytes exchanged during the TCP
conversation.  

The next step in this cat-and-mouse game is rather obvious.

P2P is a passive/background use of the Internet, such as NTP, automated
backups, and the like.  Others disagree with me, but during moments of
occasional unexpected congestion, I don't mind an ISP prioritizing active
use such as VoIP or gaming packets higher than P2P.  

Prioritization (or degradation) shouldn't be used to prevent me from using
the advertised bandwidth that I bought (in advance, no less).  It also
shouldn't be used to slow the rate of the always-necessary expansion of the
pool of bandwidth that an ISP has to make available to adequately meet the
demands of its users.

With cheer,

Robb Topolski