If you're going to cap (and maybe rate-limit) people, I can't see what
restricting their access further will accomplish. Maybe blocking P2P
(bittorrent/etc) is a good idea, but I wouldn't want to go any further.
Otherwise you'll spend forever unblocking ports because you didn't allow
some wierd IM protocol by mistake.
A network that doesn't allow at least
* POP3, IMAP, SMTP on port 587, the SSL versions of these
is not going to be especially useful to me. And it's pretty hard to
block some of those protocols by port number anyway. SIP/RTP based VoIP
(aka standards compliant) basically needs all UDP ports to be open. And
you can't block P2P by port numbers these days anyway, you need to do L7
classification. Blocking skype is next to impossible.
But if you're planning to *manually* block people who use over 1GB, then
you're stuck slowing people down so they can't use too much before you
notice. Manually blocking like that sounds like a *really* bad idea to
me. Adding automatic blocking to a closed system like Meraki is
probably between difficult and impossible. I've written code to do
usage-based blocking before for the VUW computer club's wireless network
(first student-accessible wifi network in a wellington tertiary
institution, as far as I know) -- it's much easier when you're basing
your network on an open system like we did.
> Just interested in what everyones perceptions of free internet is.
Two views, free is worth what you pay for it, free is as in speech.
> Anyone else got any views?
Defining a set of ports ignores the applications/services/purposes
that flows over them.
80 is sufficient for all that is admired and despised. Volume as a
measure is probably apt.
Myself, I think a free Internet will be like air, you speak, they
hear, no one counts your words, and in P2P conversation transmitters
and receivers make their own decisions about language and content.