From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 26 11:52:00 2004 Return-Path: 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 6B29D16A4CE for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:52:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9822143D2F for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:51:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from turbo23@gmx.net) Received: (qmail 2588 invoked by uid 65534); 26 Feb 2004 19:51:58 -0000 Received: from 253.catv107.lgt01.lan.ch (EHLO gmx.net) (62.204.107.253) by mail.gmx.net (mp005) with SMTP; 26 Feb 2004 20:51:58 +0100 X-Authenticated: #627573 Message-ID: <403E4F68.9040908@gmx.net> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:56:24 +0100 From: Thomas Vogt User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5b (Windows/20040215) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Navan Carson References: <20040226143350.24a35dc1@bert.mlan.solnet.ch> <403E1833.7040101@netlinkers.net> In-Reply-To: <403E1833.7040101@netlinkers.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: p2p traffic X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:52:00 -0000 Hi Navan Navan Carson wrote: > 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. Thnx. Well this solution will not work for me. Since the bandwidth is already payed, I've interested to fill my backbone with traffic :-). The problems are more during the peak time. If no other customer uses http, nntp, vpn... then I don't care about p2p traffic. But I saw that the p2p traffic is growing rapidly. Much more than any other traffic. So at the moment I do queuing with ipfw/dummynet without any problem. This works fine untile the p2p clients are starting to use port 80 more often. This makes it very difficult for filtering. So I'm looking for a solution for this specified problem. Frist I thought about snort. But I'm not sure if this works very well with gigabit backbones. regards Thomas Vogt