On 21 November 2016 12:20:41 GMT+00:00, Mike Zanker <mike@???> wrote:
>On 21 Nov 2016, at 11:49, Chris Dennis <cgdennis@???> wrote:
>
>> Here's a question: is BitFolk an 'ISP' for the purposes of the bill?
>-- does it collect metadata about traffic in and out of my VPS?
>>
>> If not, would it make sense to use my BitFolk VPS as a VPN, so that
>it proxies my home internet connection? I've been toying with the idea
>of using software such as OpenVPN for this, and the bill (very nearly
>an Act now) gives me another reason for getting on with it.
>>
>> The alternative would be to use a paid-for VPN provider such as the
>ones recommended in that article.
>
>I must admit that I’ve been thinking along the same lines, although my
>ISP (Andrews & Arnold) is vehemently opposed to the bill and is making
>their own plans. I think the IP Bill allows for DPI of the backhauls,
>though, so the monitoring and logging could be done before your packets
>even get to your ISP, hence the need for VPN.
>
>I’m not sure what the throughput would be on our VPS, though - it’s
>pretty CPU-intensive. Would it be likely to cause issues to the hosting
>servers?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike
>_______________________________________________
>users mailing list
>users@???
>https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
I've been thinking / preparing for this too, feel really deflated that such a terrible abuse of power has been allowed... anyway...
pfSense is a good tool, it's fairly simple to configure OpenVPN connections to VPN providers or a VPS and then route all or selected traffic through the different gateways.
--
http://donttrack.us/
