Europe’s answer to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, BEUC added another line yesterday to those previously drawn in the sand, declaring that consumers have the “right to benefit from technological innovations without abusive restrictions,” and redundantly, the “right not to be criminalised.”
Besieged Owners of Various Assets heard this as “the right to steal anything, anytime without being hassled.”
Thus, the circle is complete. Network managers are surrounded.
On the right lurk copyright holders, fatpipe providers, network owners… and lawyers. They want the pipes protected.
On the left skulk p2p file sharers, instant messagers, consumer advocacy groups… and lawyers. They want the pipes opened wide.
Sadly for network managers, they both want what they want cheap, or they’ll sue. Therein lies your problem.
Containing p2p data transfer by intercepting copyrighted data with products like Audible Magic may be dicey and expensive, as you may inadvertantly restrict legal data transfers. You might be wise to add upfront legal fees to your implementation budget.
On the other hand, simply managing p2p traffic is easy… as long as you don’t mind dropping a wad of cash. Just issue a P.O. for the latest and greatest p2p traffic shaping appliance or add-on from Allot, Cisco, Packeteer, Cymphonix, ipoque, or other googlable vendor.
But what if you’d rather save most of your hard-earned budget for other network toys? You can restrict abusive users’ bandwidth and/or limit available ports. Babak Farrokhi offers his BSD port blocking config, along with a robust debate at GeekStyle. However, as many p2p clients are now port-shifters, the list may be more interesting than effective.
Beyond that, you’ll still need to spend a little, because proper p2p management involves inspection of nearly every packet that flows across your network. And that takes horsepower, which means you need to pick up a standalone computer.
Using Linux? You can gin up a rough p2p packet controller by planting some fancy entries in iptables fortified with Linus QoS. But these are fields others have already plowed.
For example, IPP2P is an iptables module that ferrets out peer-to-peer data in IP traffic using regular expressions. P2P packets can then be blocked or restricted by assigning low priority classes or limiting available bandwidth. Commenting on the latest IPP2P release (October 20, 2005), the author crowed, “Version 0.8.0_rc3 was so stable that I have had to fix only one iptables parameter error.”
Chris Lowth offers p2pwall and rope. Lowth claims success at intercepting:
- Gnutella offspring: LimeWire, BearShare, Shareaza, Gnucleus, Gtk-Gnutella, Acquisitionx, Poisoned, Mutella, Phex, Qtella, Gnotella, XNap and CocoGnut;
- Bittorrent clients: BitTorrent, ABC, Azureus, BitManager, eDonkey2000, Rufus, BitComet, BitLord, BitSpirit, BitTornedo, Burst!, G3 Torrent, Shareza, TorrentStorm, XBT Client, Bits on wheels, Tomato Torrent, ctorrent, Qtorrent and rtorrent;
- And others: Kazaa, KazaaLite, K++, iMesh, Grokster, WinMX, OpenNAP.
Stuck on Microsoft Windows for shielding your network? Check out NetLimiter and IM Lock. Both appear to be more limited than the Linux solutions, and neither is free. But what did you expect?
More Refs:

9 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 12th, 2005 at 10:40 am
LJ
Dumb article - it’s ridiculously written. Somehow the author starts at “users argue for more digital rights” and uses that as a premise for suggesting traffic control.
Idiot - traffic control is logically precipitated by bandwidth concerns, not by the rights of users. The course of action advised by the article is repressive - complain and you’ll be punished. ISPs with such attitudes will find their only bandwidth increase coming in the form of large numbers of their customers switching to other providers.
Where does this writer live, Myanmar?
November 12th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
Editor
This discussion has many facets beyond the friction between ISPs and subscribers they consider to be illegal bandwidth hogs.
For many network managers… especially those in government and business… concerns include illegal transfer of copyrighted material, like Star Wars movies, and the resulting excessive bandwidth consumption. (Yes, they often do go together.)
We’re all for legal data exchange on those networks that agree to it. But our position appears to directly conflict with the BEUC’s whenever, whatever concept.
If you care to bring yourself up to date on all sides of the subject, please don’t hesitate to click the links.
November 12th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
cartman
Bandwidth hogs??? Call a spade a spade. Spoiled brats rationalizing thievery. Tell Daddy again why you were forced to steal that comic book.
November 12th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
mr. man
“Tell Daddy again why you were forced to steal that comic book.”
how can you steal a product that doesn’t exist? a computer file is not a physical product.
November 14th, 2005 at 9:59 am
Bob Halloran
The recent problems with Sony’s CDs installing Windows rootkits, which black hats are then exploiting, says it all. I should be able to rip the tracks on a CD I legitimately bought to my MP3 player without having my PC broken because the music company assumes I’m going to broadcast it all to the ‘Net. Their rights to protect their content vs. my rights to a secure system? No contest.
November 14th, 2005 at 10:01 am
Bob Halloran
The bulk of this article seems to be plugs for ISP monitoring tools vs. any sort of discussion of the issues of P2P. Previous comment says my take on the latter. How much are the tool vendors passing you for the plug?
November 14th, 2005 at 10:30 am
Editor
We were 100% in agreement till you got to the cheap “plug”-shot. As the majority of the discussion covered GPL software, we’re baffled by the suggestion that we’re being paid for a plug.
Those who read Email Battles regularly are well versed in our iconoclastic views. For those who don’t know us, a quick clue: Check the headline sidebars. Internally, we refer to them as “headline haiku”… editorial comment in one line.
We will defend to the death your right (and ours) to rip, bend, shake, stir, give away, or even sell anything you own.
In addition, you have the right to buy products with the full expectation that the manufacturer isn’t embedding them with nasties.
The article covers a consumer group’s official statement that appears to us to condone wide distribution without payment of materials that cost others millions to create. Whether BEUC is right or wrong is somewhat academic to network managers. They still have to deal with the foo. Many consumers have already jumped on this bandwagon; thus, network managers are finding themselves hamstrung between the need to maintain network integrity while avoiding unhappy users and noxious lawsuits.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:25 am
Bob Halloran
OK, mea maxima culpa on the second comment. I was feeling a bit heated on the matter given the Sony crapfest going on.
The BEUC comments, though, boil down to what I’d said in the first comment: if you buy it, it’s yours, not “licensed” from Media Inc. I should be able to enjoy the music on my various hardware without the presumption of infringement. Embedding spyware, rootkits, etc. and generally fscking up my system on the chance I might put their precious music out on eDonkey isn’t acceptable. Go after the infringers with everything, yes. Don’t cripple *my* CDs assuming I’m one of them. Points to the CA & NY AG’s for threatening Sony with lawsuits.
November 15th, 2005 at 8:16 am
Editor
Amen. Bob, the only daylight between us is in the interpretation of the BEUC statements.
We read their words literally… and believe that they mean precisely what they say.
As for the Sony BMG debacle, we hope to shed more light this afternoon.