3 ms·
Harder to distinguish between DNS queries and other traffic. Since a lot of censorship is DNS based that’s significant.
by oxymoron 8y ago
Harder to distinguish between DNS queries and other traffic. Since a lot of censorship is DNS based that’s significant.
- kiriakasis 8y agoThis is really the main point. I support this but it has its downsides, for example flixbus blocks YouTube on their free WiFi. I think they have all the rights to do it as some site are heavier to support than others and they might be forced to shut it off if it became common (Also a lot of people don't have earphones on them an being beside someone watching "funny" YouTube videos at 3am is torture (end of personal rant...))
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y agoWouldn't this be better served by bandwidth limiting/shaping?
- kiriakasis 8y agothat would mean that if many people used youtube they would all have terrible speed, which would make their wifi look of bad quality. The primary purpose of their on board wifi is to buy tickets and check connections. In this case video streaming might really be more expensive than necessary
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y agoI mean limiting per-user bandwidth. So if you try to watch youtube on your personal 1Mb slice, good luck, but you won't drag down anyone else, and for the stated goals of buying tickets and such it's fine.