21 Nov
2016
21 Nov
'16
1:11 p.m.
On 21 November 2016 12:20:41 GMT+00:00, Mike Zanker <mike(a)zanker.uk> wrote:
On 21 Nov 2016, at 11:49, Chris Dennis
<cgdennis(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
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/
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(a)lists.bitfolk.com
https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users