Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Caching Torrent files in DNS 283

Posted by CmdrTaco from the crazy-concepts dept.
bodin writes "This is a proof of concept version of BitTorrent where the torrent files are transported over DNS. This will of course bog down BIND servers all over the planet. Everyone should be thankful that the files are not sent over DNS."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Caching Torrent files in DNS More

Caching Torrent files in DNS

Comments Filter:

  • Great (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 30, 2003 @11:54AM (#7592757)
    Great I get to see this article posted just before the internet slows to an unacceptable crawl and names stop resolving.

    • Re:Great (Score:2, Funny)

      by mobby_6kl ( 668092 )
      >and names stop resolving.

      That's not a problem, as real geeks remeber all the IPs they need.
    • I've circulated the idea of using DNS around the BitTorrent mail list for some time now, but it uses the DNS in a different way from distributing the torrent files themselves through DNS caches. It's doubtful putting data inside caches would "bog down the DNS system", but to turn DNS into essentially web servers is:
      1. An ugly, ugly hack, and a wrong tool for the job (tm)
      2. Wrong using others' resources in a way that is not intended (serving binary data)

      My goal of using the DNS is however the same: solve

  • Speling? (Score:4, Funny)

    by JoeBaldwin ( 727345 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @11:54AM (#7592759) Homepage Journal
    Bloody hell, that guy has awful spelling!

    And he's coded what is obviously the *worst idea ever!*

    Do you want to shoot him or shall I?

    • Re:Speling? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by johnburton ( 21870 ) <johnb@jbmail.com> on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:02PM (#7593079) Homepage
      Well.... The files are small and you have to do a DNS lookup *anyway* to reach the site they are on so maybe it's not toally stupid.... But it's probably a very bad idea to encourage this kind of thing

      • I don't think it's such a bad idea. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @07:59PM (#7595274) Journal
        I don't see what the issue is, exactly. DNS data is propagated lazily. The only issues is that you'd have maybe three machines storing the data instead of one.

        Unless .torrent files are particularly big -- I happened to have one on my hard drive, which was under 512 bytes.

        I'm not sure that there's much point in using DNS to propagate .torrent files -- it seems that USENET or similar would be a better choice, given that they tend to only be useful for a short period of time, that announcements of new torrents is a useful characteristic of a .torrent propagation system, and that archiving torrents is useful -- but I also don't really see the harm in this.

        Given the kind of load that nameservers happily handle today when you hit a webpage with a number of entries (especially for those annoying little "badges") (and the nameserver potentially gets twenty or more lookup requests all at once), there can't be a huge processing hit.

        There *might* be a storage hit...but suppose there are 10,000 torrent files out there, and each is 1K. That's just 10MB of data, and I doubt anyone is interested in storing all available torrents.

        Finally, I suppose that bandwidth might be an issue, but I suspect that given the frequency of DNS lookups and the infrequency of someone needing a new .torrent file, the bandwidth will not be an issue.

        I have done plenty of fun things with DNS and run a small DNS server, but I will freely admit that I am not a DNS wizard, and leave it to the folks on NANOG to debate the merits of this.

        For my money, though, this is cute and not harmful at all, though it might not be particularly useful.

    • Verisign Employee? (Score:4, Funny)

      by InfiniteWisdom ( 530090 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @02:48PM (#7593554) Homepage
      And he's coded what is obviously the *worst idea ever!*

      Does he work for Verisign?

    • Re:Speling? (Score:2, Troll)

      by Nailer ( 69468 )
      Bloody hell, he's using DNS as a distributed information serving resource, as it was designed to do! Bloody hell, the only point you have to make is criticise his spelling! Bloody hell you sound the comic book guy from the simpsons!

      Bloody hell the overly violent geek reaction is so very two years ago, it makes me want to rape you with a porcupine.

      Not really that funny now is it?

  • BT Itself? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AntiPasto ( 168263 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @11:55AM (#7592768) Journal
    I know its sort of a chicken / egg thing... but can someone explain exactly why BT itself can't be used to distribute torrents, or to share the bandwidth of tracking?

    • Re:BT Itself? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by damiam ( 409504 )
      I know its sort of a chicken / egg thing... but can someone explain exactly why BT itself can't be used to distribute torrents

      BT works by connecting to a tracker, which tells it about other hosts downloading the same file. Without a .torrent file, BT doesn't know what file to get or how to contact the tracker. You could distribute .torrent files over BT, but you'd need another .torrent to tell BT where to go to get the first .torrent. It'd only really be practical if you put together a massive collection

    • Mostly because you need a .torrent to use BT, so it's a bit silly to use BT to distribute .torrents. If you really, really wanted, you could make one smaller .torrent to get a somehwat larger .torrent, and then use that one to get the real file. That's probably as deep as you could go, since the chunk size is 256K, and as soon as you have a .torrent that only points to one chunk, it doesn't get any smaller than that.

      Still, .torrent file are relatively small to begin with, so it's generally not worth worr

  • "It would be bad..." (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Chalybeous ( 728116 ) <chalybeous@yahooSTRAW.co.uk minus berry> on Sunday November 30, 2003 @11:56AM (#7592777) Homepage Journal

    Seriously. I don't pretend to understand 100% of the technology involved, but it seems pretty clear even to me that:

    • DNS servers, as the name implies, are for serving DNS information.
    • For information to be propagated at a good speed, we don't want DNS servers to be bogged down.
    • If we start using DNS servers to send information larger than the usual DNS information, we bog them down.
    That isn't to say that I think BitTorrent cacheing isn't possible. I just don't think it's a good idea to use existing DNS servers for it, although perhaps something could be built on similar technology, or dedicated Torrent users could run their own DNS servers if they're that determined to do something so bandwidth-intensive...
    • It seems to me that sites like suprnova.org and other tracker sites already attempt to serve that purpose, in essence they are manually run Torrent DNS servers that are human readable. Their hardware just can't keep up with the demand, so this guy decided to force every DNS on earth to do it for them. A better solution would be for the tracker sites to switch from a web-based solution to a DNS-type (not actually DNS) tracking server, but then they wouldn't have advertising or any hope of fame or revenue.

    • We have the technology! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DrZaius ( 6588 ) <gary.richardson+slashdot@gmail.com> on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:25PM (#7592924) Homepage
      DNS is a resource locating service. For example, SRV records are a nicer way of autoconfiging your network.

      With SRV records, you say service.domain = port at host. You could do a dig for ldap.slashdot.org and findout that the ldap server is on port 389 at directory.slashdot.org.

      This is a slight extension of this. I don't know the exact implementation, but you could have a zone file that looks like:

      'file being served'.bt.slashdot.org SRV 0 0 PORT 'seed host'

      You can have multiple SRV's per resource and load balance between them.

      DNS is currently used for stuff like this all over the place. We already have the technology. IXFR means we can transfer just the changes in the zones when there are updates.

      Last time I checked, DNS is not over loaded and will scale to handle this. Even it 50% of the internet uses BT over DNS, 100% of the internet uses DNS for email, web and so forth. Every time an email is delivered, there are at least 6-10 DNS queries.

      DNS will not be bogged down.
    • DNS servers, as the name implies, are for serving DNS information.

      Yeah, and HTTP servers are for serving HyperText only :)

    • >DNS servers, as the name implies, are for
      >serving DNS information.

      A TXT record with a name, associated with a given origin, *IS* a DNS record. Whether it fits your own narrowly defined idea of what constitutes a DNS record is not relevant. If your ISP does not propagate or cache TXT records, that's another matter entirely. But to say these are not DNS records is an example of the same sort of reasoning that leads people to believe "the Web" is "the Internet."

  • Don't mess with DNS (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 30, 2003 @11:58AM (#7592785)
    I don't think it is a bad idea but I think we must start making "prime directives" ala RoboCop. ....
    Prime Directives
    1. Get DSL/Cable Modem
    2. Install Linux/BSD/OpenSource OS.
    3. Do not mess with DNS

  • This was bound to happen (Score:5, Interesting)

    by color of static ( 16129 ) <smasters@@@ieee...org> on Sunday November 30, 2003 @11:58AM (#7592793) Homepage Journal
    Some of us have been using DNS to get through some really draconian firewalls for ages. It was just a matter of time before we saw someone distribute files this way. What is unique is that they will be cached. This in and of itself is an amazing idea. DNS is well designed to cache for well defined amounts of time.

    The load on large DNS servers can grow quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a set of patches coming out for DNS servers to combat this. the question is can we find a TTL that reduces the abuse and still makes it useful.
    • Some of us have been using DNS to get through some really draconian firewalls for ages. It was just a matter of time before we saw someone distribute files this way

      It's just another irresponsibility specifically designed to slink through a firewall, and subvert security. It's just like Microsoft SOAP that's nothing more than RPC via port 80, and also designed to evade firewalls. And yeah, Microsoft talk alot about security using SOAP while never actually adressing the issues.

      What is unique is that they

      • A good DNS cache should still be useful, just not as much as it used to be. The reason, you will reference sites that you use (your mail server, popular websites) thousands of times, while you will access each block in the download once or twice. The hit count should wash out the noise to some degree. Now sites that you only hit once every few hours are likly to require smarter cache design to not become irrelevant to the cache.
      • It's just another irresponsibility specifically designed to slink through a firewall, and subvert security. It's just like Microsoft SOAP that's nothing more than RPC via port 80, and also designed to evade firewalls.

        That's a fairly silly statement, given that the existing method for downloading tracker files is HTTP. I think HTTP is right up there with DNS in terms of ease of getting through firewalls. And, you know, if I was really desparate, I could just get someone to email me the tracker file, or I

    • Re:This was bound to happen (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Malcontent ( 40834 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:49PM (#7593292)
      " DNS is well designed to cache for well defined amounts of time."

      It's amazing to me how well designed the DNS infrastructure is. Just the right balance of decentralization and authority. Unlike P2P systems it relies on root servers to provide an authoritive content but it also provides a completely decentrized administration infrastructure.

      I am shocked that DNS or the ideas behind it have not been used for all kinds of things.
    • Maybe you understand this already and maybe not. The load on the dns servers wouldn't really be that large, only the .torrent file is distributed via dns, not the data itself.
      • I understand he isn't running CD images through this (although someone can), but this could be abbusive to some DNS servers. I run two caching servers for about 45 users and we get around 50K requests in an hour. We need most of the 100 MB allocated to our dnscache to keep the hit ratio where it should be. I can't imagine what some TIER I DNS server might look like if this becomes prevalent.
        • Yes, but it sounds to me like this would be purely optional to support, based on how you configured your DNS server. In any case though, a .torrent file is only about 1.5K to 4K in size, as far as I've ever seen. We're talking about little more than a file containing URL type information inside of it.
        • I can't imagine what some TIER I DNS server might look like if this becomes prevalent.

          If by "TIER I DNS server" you mean root name server, then the answer is that it would have little effect. The records are stored under names like 0_197_56633ab0d90f43c68ed1b47358eccfe7.domain.com . All the root and .com nameservers have to do is provide the cachable referral to domain.com, which they're doing already. It makes no difference to them how many queries the domain.com nameserver receives.

          And as for your
  • It's cool hack not withstanding how useless it is. I suppose if you were on a closed network that needed to propagate a lot of torrent files for some reason it would make since, but still it's a cool hack.

  • Ouch! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 )
    BitTorrent already requires fixed servers for operation (the "trackers"), and serving torrent files from the same trackers isn't a terrible burden. Why on earth would someone want to abuse DNS for this purpose?
    • Why on earth would someone want to abuse DNS for this purpose?

      Duh! Because it makes it easier to spread information and harder for RIAA to stop them.
      • It really doesn't make it any harder for the RIAA to shut down a .torrent file. Even if the torrent is cached in a DNS server, it still just points to a tracker running somewhere on the internet. All the RIAA has to do is shut down the site running the tracker, which is the same thing it would have to do to make the .torrent disappear if it was being served from the same box that ran that tracker.

    • Re:Ouch! (Score:3, Informative)

      by eraser.cpp ( 711313 ) *
      Because sites hosting torrent files for illegal material (which nearly all of it is) will in many cases find themselves shutdown. Through the use of DNS caching it's impossible for any host to shutdown people's access to the tracker immediately.

    • Re:Ouch! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ctr2sprt ( 574731 )
      I don't know if it's a terrible burden or not, but for very popular torrents (>4000 downloaders, >100 seeds) the trackers will often start choking as they run out of steam. With DNS, though, you have automatic load balancing, so no one server gets hammered as badly.

      The basic issue here is twofold. First, how can we get load-sharing for all aspects of BT? And second, how can we do that while keeping BT a "lightweight" program (i.e. one that doesn't require special server programs)? DNS may not be

  • What can we do next? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Limburgher ( 523006 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:06PM (#7592823) Homepage Journal
    Also coming soon:

    Freenet over DHCP;

    Gnutella over BOOTP;

    And last, but not least, KaZaa over WINS!!! :)

  • DNS is being used to exchange the Torrent files, which are small, not the data itself, which is large.

    The Torrent files are indexes that tell your BitTorrent program where and how to get its data.

    This sounds very useful, since what was missing from the BitTorrent network was a way of distributing cached Torrent files, and this is exactly what DNS provides.

    Remains to be seen whether it actually works, but it's a neat concept.

    • Not THAT small. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 )
      Using DNS to cache a dozen or two kilobytes (or less, or more) where it's only meant to handle a few BYTES is likely to cause all sorts of problems.
      • > Using DNS to cache a dozen or two kilobytes (or less, or more) where it's only
        > meant to handle a few BYTES is likely to cause all sorts of problems

        The DNS spec states that the TXT record string can be up to 255 bytes.

        255 > few, and the spec in RFC is what it was meant to handle.

        • Re:Not THAT small. (Score:3, Informative)

          by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 )
          255 12,000, 25,000, or I've seen torrents that were several hundred K.
          • /. stripped out my "less than" sign.
          • 255 12,000, 25,000, or I've seen torrents that were several hundred K.

            Let's just use metatorrents then:
            A tiny .torrent, distributed via DNS TXT records, which points to the real .torrent (which could be over a megabyte - ever seen a DVD ISO's torrent?), which is served by bittorrent itself, with its bandwidth efficiency!

            I've actually seen this happen on bittorrent sites - and it would work perfectly in this situation. Maybe a "metatorrent" format for lower overhead could be designed, specifically targeted

      • Re:Not THAT small. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:29PM (#7592942) Homepage
        Actually, DNS is designed to handle considerably more than just the few bytes of data that would typically be required for an A or PTR record. One reason for DNS supporting TCP was to enable queries of more than 64kB, which are quite often seen on zone transfers, and should be able to cope with the majority of .torrent files.

        Plus, I don't see how this is going to put the huge strain on the DNS infrastructure that is implied, apart from the server hosting the torrent's TXT record anyway. Assuming no cached DNS information, I need to perform exactly the same number of DNS queries to resolve foo.domain.com to get a TXT record as I do get pull a tracker file from it. Judging by some of the posts here already some seem to think that the root DNS servers are going to have to handle terabytes of movies files or something, and that just isn't that case.

      • Re:Not THAT small. (Score:5, Informative)

        by CowboyMeal ( 614487 ) <nhauser@noSPAM.alum.rit.edu> on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:42PM (#7592991)
        Not only that, but DNS was designed to handle a lot of tiny requests, and a few huge requests. For the many many tiny requests, it uses UDP, and doesnt have to go through the overhead of a full-blown TCP connection. This is what makes it so scalable. If it has to send back more than 512 bytes (for a zone transfer or torrent file), it sets up a TCP connection, but in the case of a zone transfer, it doesnt have to do this very often.

        For a typical name query, only two UDP segments are involved, one for the request and one for the response. If you were to request a torrent file, you would need the first three TCP handshaking segments, one to send the request, and then 1 or 2( depending on the machine setup) to send back the torrent file.

        Normal DNS query: 2 segments
        Torrent file DNS query: 5 or 6 segments

        So that takes 2.5-3 times more processing time per request on the DNS server, and that doesnt even take into account the TCP session state.
    • I agree with the parent -- It's a fantastic idea. For everybody who likes the idea of bittorrent but has run into the dreaded problem of the tracker server refusing connections or just getting bogged down this is a life saver.

      The key to understanding is that the DNS information that is supplied by the tracker (the torrent server) will be cached all around the world thus eliminating the endless amount of tracker server overload that we all see.

      For the previous hundred flamers: the actual file is not

      • "I agree with the parent -- It's a fantastic idea. For everybody who likes the idea of bittorrent but has run into the dreaded problem of the tracker server refusing connections or just getting bogged down this is a life saver."

        This will not solve the problem of a tracker going off line, getting DDoS'd, or simply being too busy.

        As far as I understand, this is just to distribute the .torrent file itself, nothing to do with data distribution. That still requires trackers and the like, and is still a point o

  • I've got a great Idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by jonfromspace ( 179394 ) <jonwilkinsNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:10PM (#7592846)
    Why don't we funnel all trucking traffic into and out of all major port cities through residential streets!

    That way, a system we already have in place that seems to work ok can be scrapped, and we can bog down commuters only BLOCKS from their homes!!!!

    THEN, I can get my article on Slashdot.

  • but ed2k:// URLs...? These are maybe 200 bytes long...

  • Standing up for fun/useless hacks! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by iamdrscience ( 541136 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:21PM (#7592909) Homepage
    There are already a number of posts on Slashdot talking about how this is a really bad idea. I disagree (with a big but). It would almost certainly be a Bad Idea (TM) if this were enacted and people tried to make it the main way of distributing torrents. However, I don't think the idea was meant to do that, I think it was more just to show that it could be done. It's akin to people who get put on the mainpage of Slashdot for hacking their Apple IIe's so that they have ethernet and then writing a simple graphical operating system for them so they can browse the web. Impractical and largely useless? Probably. Interesting and fun hack? Definitely.

  • What's the Problem? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Abjifyicious ( 696433 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:22PM (#7592911)
    If people start using this extensively, and the DNS servers start getting clogged up by this, we'll just have to come up with a way to send DNS information over BitTorrent! That way, everything will balance out, right?
    • If people start using this extensively, and the DNS servers start getting clogged up by this, we'll just have to come up with a way to send DNS information over BitTorrent! That way, everything will balance out, right?

      Yes, first we'll use the DNS servers to get the torrent file, and then we'll use BitTorrent to get DNS information!
    • Well we are used to that kind of thing aren't we? First we create IP to send data packets over all kinds of infrastructures. Then we put TCP on top of that to maintain connections. Then we go and create HTTP on top of TCP, basically to fetch larger packet (html files). Then we add cookies to that to maintain connections (session) with a server, basically bringing us back to where we where with tcp, only bigger 'packets' and more overhead. Since we have come such a long way we now start tunneling about every

  • Missing the point are we? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pomac ( 159163 ) <ian.kumlien@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:25PM (#7592921) Homepage
    If someone adds TXT records to their dnses and in turn to their dns slaves it's their buissnies, how the hell will this affect all dnses available in the world? You generally ask the "owner dns" but yes, if you ask your "ips's dns" or someone elses dns then they might cache the result.

    But how bad is that really? How large is a .torrent file? And wouldn't linux distrobutiors enjoy this?

    $large_isp has several users who wants to download $linux_dist. The first user gets the TXT record and is off downloading. And the rest of em uses the cached record (if it is cached) in either case $linux_dist's webserver dosn't suffer as hard and they can always add more slave dnses to handle the load. Perhaps users even starts slave servers for that zone to help the dist.

    (Is there really a rule that says "you have to cache and store TXT for $TTL time".)

    And whats this with spelling? I mean you totally miss the point and... complain about spelling? is that the end of the world? =) /me is also a typical Swedish geek =)

  • Won't help the real bottleneck (Score:3, Informative)

    by Wesley Felter ( 138342 ) <wesley@felter.org> on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:33PM (#7592964) Homepage
    I would guess that serving .torrent files is not a problem compared to the bandwidth and CPU used by the tracker. When downloading a file via BitTorrent, you only download the .torrent once but you check in with the tracker every few minutes.

  • I've thought about this... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:39PM (#7592981) Homepage
    I've been wondering about (ab)using DNS for FreeBSD Update -- the idea being that when you're updating a system which is not up to date with security fixes, you might want to be behind a draconian firewall. (The caching benefits of DNS are a non-issue; updating a year-old RELEASE takes only a couple MB.)

    In the end, I decided that it would be more trouble than it's worth; but if someone else has written code I can borrow (I haven't looked in detail) then I might reconsider this.

  • Google cache? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Trbmxfz ( 728040 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @12:47PM (#7593013)
    What about attempting to have Google cache torrent files by using a format that allows them to be embedded in the text of web pages?

    Often, slashdotted articles are still available thru Google. That might work.

  • It's BIND not DNS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ricin ( 236107 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:09PM (#7593112)
    From TFA: "due the nature of the DNS it *CACHES* the entries"

    No, that's BIND. And a BIND zonefile is just that: a BIND zonefile. All this is about BIND, not DNS. It does not work "over" or "with" or "through" DNS.

    It's not clever either. More like abusing other people's resources.

    • Re:It's BIND not DNS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cyb97 ( 520582 ) <cyb97@noxtension.com> on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:45PM (#7593270) Homepage Journal
      It's kind of in the nature of a caching-nameserver to cache the lookups it does.

      This doesn't only apply to BIND, it applies to any nameserver used for cachingpurposes. Be it djbdns, MS-dns, etc.

      I can't see why people disrespect the author, it's a proof-of-concept; ie. it can be done. Nobody says it should be done at all...
      (and it seems to me like half of the posters here either didnt RTFA or has misunderstood major parts of the article)

  • torrent files search application (Score:5, Informative)

    by polyp2000 ( 444682 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:10PM (#7593118) Homepage Journal

    I discovered this the other day,
    http://www.torrentsearch.org/
    basically its a p2p program that downloads the whole database of .torrent files from mirrors.
    You can then search for torrents through the gui. You can then download the .torrent file to hard disk from whence it can be opened with your bit torrent client. Currently there are about 3000 torrents on the database. So maybe you wont need to ditch voracity or suprnova yet. Its definitely a useful addition to the bittorrent arsenal. The current download is a win32 app, but I have found it works fine with crossover wine. Would be nice if it were ported to linux ( I dont think it would be that difficult its a relatively simple app!) It would be nice if everyone used the same system for hosting trackers and torrent files.

    nick ...
    • Sure! It's GREAT.. if you want 11,000,000 pop-up pr0n ads, and then the program crashes once you finally get all the ads closed.

    • Is that EULA for real?! "Please Jack My Computer" (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dr. Ion ( 169741 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @04:57PM (#7594284)
      Sounds like a neat program. Unfortunately, it sounds like a festering mound of virus that would singlehandedly OWN any machine it touches and any unfortunate user too impatient or stupid not to click "AGREE: Totally Hose My Machine". I'm quoting the EULA here, not making this stuff up. Gator's spyware is green with envy:


      By accepting this agreement, I certify the following:

      4) I understand that by accepting these terms and conditions, this program will be installed on my computer and my web browser home and search page will be changed in order to allow me access.

      5) I also acknowledge that a Desktop toolbar will be installed on this system as a stand-alone module and that the Desktop toolbar will update itself from time to time in accordance with the EULA Privacy Policy.

      6) I further understand that an accessory tool bar will be added to my web browser which will remain visible as long as the software is installed and agree that I wish to use your search engine for my
      web browsers auto search option and default error age.

      7) To insure you always have the latest version and for your convenience this software will automatically update itself from time to
      time once installed in accordance with this EULA and Privacy Policy.

      8) If you decide to change your homepage or search page at a later date this information ?the url? will be sent back to our servers and a pass-through toolbar will be installed at the bottom of your web
      browser. This toolbar will remain active as long as this software is installed on your system.

      9) I understand that, by accepting these terms and conditions, bookmarks will be added to my system, which may be removed manually or via un-installation of the software.

      10) In order for us to keep this software free, from time to time promotional offers from our sponsors will be displayed to you.

      11) To prevent your browser from becoming cluttered when our toolbar is installed, any other toolbars you currently have visible will
      be deactivated. They can be restored manually through the IE view menu.

      12) In order for this software to function properly, If incorrect host-file entries are detected for this software's related domain
      names, those entries will be removed.

      13) If you wish to uninstall this software you may do so at any time by going to your start menu, Control Panel, Add / Remove Programs, and then selecting this application. Additionally a separate uninstaller may be downloaded from the website the Sponsor Software installs
      in your web browser, or you mail email support@lop.com for further assistance.

      14) Bookmarking to a page on this server/site whereby this warning page is by-passed shall constitute an implicit acceptance of the
      foregoing terms herein set forth.
      And it does go on.

  • Host Files (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:26PM (#7593191)
    See, I told you DNS would cause problems

    You should have listened to me and stuck with Host files ;-)
  • Its design supports more networking addressing schemes than TCP/IP. These Bittorrent files are just addresses one/two abstraction levels from raw ip addresses. No big deal. You all sound like a bunch of whiney old ladies. Death of DNS! News at 11! The impact this will have on the DNS system you couldn't even measure with an electron microscope so just calm down.

  • Only the torrent files are being distributed (Score:3, Informative)

    by unixbob ( 523657 ) on Sunday November 30, 2003 @01:57PM (#7593333)
    Lots of postings discuss the load being placed on the DNS servers as lots of mp3's and binaries are transferred through them. Perhaps I am misunderstanding this but surely it's just the .torrent files themselves that are being distributed. The torrent files are just pointers to the trackers which keep a record of the peers who have the files. Distributing the .torrent files probably wouldn't put a massive load on DNS Servers.
  • Umm, if the point is to reduce http traffic, I think the obvious solution should be a caching proxy server. Your ISP should already have one. I admit the story was fun, and it must have been great to hack on it, but it's not really about caching.
  • I'm really surprised this hasn't been patented. After all, it's a novel idea, and it would be extremely difficult to find any prior art. Hell, I'm sure you could make all the usual arguments for software patents for this concept.

    I love the US patent system.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Close