If you pirate music, you're downloading fascism!

[Arjan Hulsebos]

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:55:58 -0400, Paul Mather wrote
> Oh, okay, but again, why?  And what would an ad hoc point-to-point  
> IPSec link buy you above just a simple encrypted connection, other  
> than more headaches?  Aside from the bandwidth loss due to  
> encapsulation, lots of folks are behind NAT and (assuming support 
> was  deployed) you'd lose yet more bandwidth due to NAT-T 
> encapsulation.   
> (Assuming you could overcome the "firewalled" status that afflicts 
>  lots of BitTorrent users to get the whole idea to fly reliably.)

I wouldn't know why you'd want this, but it does scale (and that was my
original point).

> > Using port 80 on your client probably would also do (unless your ISP  
> > doesn't
> > allow you to run webservers at home).
> 
> I believe ISPs gave up using port numbers for throttling BitTorrent  
> traffic ages ago.  Don't they all use deep packet inspection these days?

No, I think they rate limit anything but tcp/80, tcp/443, tcp/25, tcp/8080,
udp/67, and udp/53. Far easier, and it doesn't cost you extra.

Gr,

Arjan H

--------------------------------
Rock in the 70ies:
   substance inhalation, hotel devastation, and amplifier obliteration