From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Feb 26 08:01:33 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C1F16A4CE
	for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:01:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from netlinkers.net (micro3.micro-mania.net [209.137.243.197])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1218D43D1F
	for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:01:33 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from navan@netlinkers.net)
Received: from netlinkers.net [206.54.119.52] by netlinkers.net with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-6.06) id A8CC13BC00F8; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:03:24 -0700
Message-ID: <403E1833.7040101@netlinkers.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:00:51 -0700
From: Navan Carson <navan@netlinkers.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
References: <20040226143350.24a35dc1@bert.mlan.solnet.ch>
In-Reply-To: <20040226143350.24a35dc1@bert.mlan.solnet.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: p2p traffic
X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Services Providers <freebsd-isp.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp>,
	<mailto:freebsd-isp-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-isp>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-isp-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp>,
	<mailto:freebsd-isp-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:01:33 -0000

Thomas Vogt wrote:
> I'm thinking about the p2p network problem. P2p creates a lot of
> traffic. I don't care if my backbone is full but not only with p2p
> traffic. Atm I do some queueing with dummynet for the well known p2p
> ports. But this looks not sufficient. Is there another, perhaps better
> solution to decrease the p2p traffic? Blocking is no alternative.
> Another problem is that new p2p clients uses port 80. So it's very
> difficult to reconize the p2p traffic. 

Try the method describe in the following article:
http://www.holland-consulting.net/tech/imblock.html

You also have your usage policy.  Forbid it in all of the packages that 
you offer.  If customers really want this, create an package that covers 
the additional cost that you will incur.