I was hardly even thinking of Windows for this purpose. There's Linux of
course, but more appropriately for this purposes would be a real-time OS
like QNX.
Wasn't thinking of using an x86 as a second processor, but as the
primary processor inside these routers. One of the first routers that I
had was an old Dlink 4-port ethernet. I opened it up, and found inside
it was an AMD 186 embedded chip. So x86 has been used inside these
things before. Imagine an Opteron embedded chip instead?
What are you talking about?
With BitTorrent you are ONLY going to be uploading the files you are
either currently downloading or have just recently downloaded and are
still left as sources for others. Given that the original poster was
using Bittorrent for it's intended purpose (ie distribution of
software he has full legal rights to be downloading), there is
absolutely no RIAA, MPAA or any other **AA organization that could say
anything against him for any reason. It would actually be rather
funny if they tried to bring such a suit to trial since it would
likely result in a whole slew of cases getting thrown out even when
the defendant really was downloading material to which they didn't
have a legal license.
In my experience the real bottleneck is when you get to the internet
providers office and are trying to get to ANY other site. It doesn't
matter if you've got cable or DSL, you end up sharing the same
bandwidth with thousands of other people VERY soon after the
connection leaves your computer.
They're overselling it because otherwise it would cost a fortune.
Besides, fiber to home won't do you one bit of good unless your ISPs
upstream pipe is greatly increased, not to mention any other jumps along
the way. I find it VERY rare that the last-mile service is your
limiting factor regardless of what sort of broadband service you use
(dial-up, of course, is another story altogether... but really, who
cares about dial-up in this day and age?!? :> )
Have you actually looked at the cost to get dedicated bandwidth? It's
just obscene how much you have to pay, and that just gets you the
bandwidth to some form of backbone. There are still plenty of hops
along the way that could slow things down.
Our local cable internet company (Rogers, known primarily for their
crappy service) has recently decided to put a 60GB up/60GB down cap on
their "unlimited" service. Of course, even before then I know of
several people, myself included, who received e-mailed warnings saying
that our service would be cut off due to excessive bandwidth use on
their "unlimited" service. They justified it by saying the only way we
could use so much bandwidth was by running a server (which I was not
running at the time, I had just downloaded several different Linux
distributions that month to test out). Not surprisingly, I am no longer
I customer of their (either for internet or TV). The ISP I have now has
limits, but they are very definite, upfront and professional about
stating what those limits are and when they apply.
Tony said:My understanding is that nVidia's "hardware" firewall on their latest
nForce chipsets uses a very stripped down part of the Linux firewall
code for this very purpose.
Gnu_Raiz said:I have it from good sources that the **AA are putting up fake torrents,
like they sometimes do with MP3's so the person who downloads the torrent
thinks they are getting the file which turns out to be a whole lot of
filler. Ok its a slashdot post, which points to an inquirer article, but I
think its a valid statement.
Tony said:Huh? Why bother with a $100+ Opteron embedded chip when a $2 ARM chip
will do just as well with a fraction of the power consumption? There
really isn't much processor required for most of these firewalls, you
could probably even pull it off without too much trouble on a 16-bit
microcontroller, though a 32-bit one might be preferable. Probably
all you would need could be handled through ucLinux, so software and
development time shouldn't take too much. Something like QNX is
probably overkill (cost wise at least) for such a setup.
Because as I've said before in this thread, I don't believe the "$2 ARM
chip" is even close to adequate for the job. I don't believe any of the
current generation of embedded processors and/or DSPs are adequate for
the job anymore. If you look at the array of tasks that's being foisted
upon them, they are quite obviously overloaded. Used to be a time when a
broadband router was just an ethernet router, now it's Ethernet and
WiFi. On top of that, the WiFi requires encrypting. The Ethernet
connection now uses a switching function that is done at the speed of
100Mbps. Let's not forget the most important function of the broadband
router, the NAT firewall. Is it a wonder that we see these routers drop
packets left-right and centre.
That means they would have to release source code with the firewall
drivers. Is it the case? Where have you seen mention of Linux?
keith said:Perhaps not a $2 ARM, but throw off the layers of windows cruft and there
is a lot of horsepower in embedded processors these days. EN switching and
encryption are trivial processes which can be accellerated in hardware.
Embed the processor on an ASIC and be done with it. A router doesn't have
all *that* much work to do, even at 100Mbps. That's only 12MBps. Even
with four ports (only two streams at this rate) not all that much is
happening. If a dropped packet happens, who's going to notice?
They'd only have to release the source of anything that uses the tainted
libraries. Not all Linux device drivers are open source. If they did
release the source it would be a good thing for security (and wouldn't
compormise their IP, I don't think), but I don't see any hard requirement
that they do.
There is no Windows cruft inside embedded applications, mostly.
Well obviously if this were that simple and clearcut, then i wouldn't
have mentioned it. But many of these routers are having a lot of trouble
keeping up with the traffic coming through them.
That means they would have to release source code with the firewall
drivers. Is it the case? Where have you seen mention of Linux?
Because as I've said before in this thread, I don't believe the "$2 ARM
chip" is even close to adequate for the job. I don't believe any of the
current generation of embedded processors and/or DSPs are adequate for
the job anymore. If you look at the array of tasks that's being foisted
upon them, they are quite obviously overloaded. Used to be a time when a
broadband router was just an ethernet router, now it's Ethernet and
WiFi. On top of that, the WiFi requires encrypting. The Ethernet
connection now uses a switching function that is done at the speed of
100Mbps. Let's not forget the most important function of the broadband
router, the NAT firewall. Is it a wonder that we see these routers drop
packets left-right and centre.
I have it from good sources that the **AA are putting up fake torrents,
like they sometimes do with MP3's so the person who downloads the torrent
thinks they are getting the file which turns out to be a whole lot of
filler. Ok its a slashdot post, which points to an inquirer article, but I
think its a valid statement.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/1831256&from=rss
When I am talking about Usenet, I am talking about alt.binaries
newsgroups, not just our discussion groups, but the other end of the
spectrum.
In a lot of those groups they post samples of movies, and music that you
can download to determine the quality of the product. If the sample looks
bad you can not download it, thus saving you all the bandwidth, and time.
But with torrents you really do not know the quality until you have the
file in front of you.
That means that the hardware reproduces the functionality of iptables?
I don't think nvidia would have a very hard time reproducing it from
scratch. No point in getting tangled up with GPL code (eh, George?).
That means that the hardware reproduces the functionality of iptables? I
don't think nvidia would have a very hard time reproducing it from
scratch. No point in getting tangled up with GPL code (eh, George?).
Did you even *READ* that article? If so, can you please explain to me
how, in ANY possible way, copy protection built into modern releases
of music products has even the slightest connection to a legal
download of Mandrake?
You're not only barking up the wrong tree here, you're not even in the
right forest!
And again, how in the hell does this relate to the full, legal download
of a Mandrake Linux distribution that is seeded directly from Mandrake
themselves?!?!
NOBODY was talking about piracy here, we're talking the fully legal and
original intended use of Bittorrent, ie to allow for the distribution of
large files without draining your websites bandwidth.
That means that the hardware reproduces the functionality of iptables?
I don't think nvidia would have a very hard time reproducing it from
scratch. No point in getting tangled up with GPL code (eh, George?).
Did you even *READ* that article? If so, can you please explain to me
how, in ANY possible way, copy protection built into modern releases
of music products has even the slightest connection to a legal
download of Mandrake?
You're not only barking up the wrong tree here, you're not even in the
right forest!
And again, how in the hell does this relate to the full, legal
download of a Mandrake Linux distribution that is seeded directly from
Mandrake themselves?!?!
NOBODY was talking about piracy here, we're talking the fully legal
and original intended use of Bittorrent, ie to allow for the
distribution of large files without draining your websites bandwidth.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.