Gnutella Forums - Hope they never do it.

Gnutella Forums (https://www.gnutellaforums.com/)

- General P2P Network Discussion (https://www.gnutellaforums.com/general-p2p-network-discussion/)

- - Hope they never do it. (https://www.gnutellaforums.com/general-p2p-network-discussion/103374-hope-they-never-do.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ale5000 (Post 377182)

... So all users of this ISP see every other directly, but they aren't seen directly from outside...

I have major doubts all fibre-optic services around the world would work in that same way.
I am wondering if the Fastweb company is using that custom technique to greatly reduce it's rollout and/or running costs. Such as the licensing costs of ip addresses.
Even the company name FastWeb sounds like a marketing tool to simply offer fast speeds but limited options for a cheap to fair price.

I wonder if the ipv4 address is in fact an ipv6 address but shows up on ipv4 systems as a private networking address.

Do you know if any of them (your friends) use fibre-optic net phones?

Edit: Long reads & cannot be bothered reading it all. Just investigating the ipv4 & ipv6 conversion techniques.

Quote:

Originally Posted by p23, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7059

Note that ISPs may have multiple subscribers share a public IPv4 address by performing NAT (Carrier-Grade NAT in this context). In this case, the subscribers' home gateways may receive an address in the 100.64.0.0/10 block [RFC6598]. For the purposes of tunnel mechanisms, this address block is similar to the RFC 1918 address blocks. However, tunnel implementations that are aware of NAT and RFC 1918 addresses may not recognise 100.64.0.0/10 as non-public addresses and fail to operate successfully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by h4x5h17 (Post 377179)

Once a network was built up statistics should determine who is an ultrapeer.

From my understanding, the network does this itself. I don't believe tampering with this is necessarily beneficial for the network IMHO. Low average uptime hosts do not necessarily deserve UP status (particularly but not only if their ip addressing is highly dynamic.)

Possible misconception: Many people seem to think being an ultrapeer means you get better search results. I recall one of the original FrostWire devs & a major LW contributor saying (on this forum) that leafs actually obtain a superior search horizon than UP's. Of course that can potentially be hampered by dud or poorly performing UP's along the way, etc.
In my personal (and recent) testing on this leaf versus ultrapeer topic, I found as a leaf I was getting more search results for the same search terms than when I connected as an ultrapeer. Example: around 120 compared to around or over 200. A notable difference and this test repeated over several sessions.

Sorry this post is actually off-topic from your original thread topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of the Rings (Post 377186)

Sorry this post is actually off-topic from your original thread topic.

:) No problem. It is still good discussion.

I'm glad you looked into the Ipv4/Ipv6 data.

In a world where Ipv6 was used by the majority of providers, I wonder if it would change Fastweb's mind on its service practices. As things sit right now, they could almost come off as trying to help with the addressing problem. Dirty pool :|

My provider (cable not fiber) kinda suck also. While they do give me external world port access, they charge the same for their slowest connection package. I get 10Mbps down/3.5Mbps and pay a little more than what a friend of mine pays for fiber(200 miles away). People only 50 miles away from me get the same connection speed at half the cost.