p2p traffic

[Thomas Vogt]

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