North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Can P2P applications learn to play fair on networks?

  • From: Gadi Evron
  • Date: Mon Oct 22 23:57:22 2007

Hey Rich.

We discussed the technology before but the actual mental click here is important -- thank you.

BTW, I *think* it was Randy Bush who said "today's leechers are tomorrow's cachers". His quote was longer but I can't remember it.


On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Rich Groves wrote:

I'm a bit late to this conversation but I wanted to throw out a few bits of info not covered.

A company called Oversi makes a very interesting solution for caching Torrent and some Kad based overlay networks as well all done through some cool strategically placed taps and prefetching. This way you could "cache out" at whatever rates you want and mark traffic how you wish as well. This does move a statistically significant amount of traffic off of the upstream and on a gigabit ethernet (or something) attached cache server solving large bits of the HFC problem. I am a fan of this method as it does not require a large foot print of inline devices rather a smaller footprint of statics gathering sniffers and caches distributed in places that make sense.

Also the people at Bittorrent Inc have a cache discovery protocol so that their clients have the ability to find cache servers with their hashes on them .

I am told these methods are in fact covered by the DMCA but remember I am no lawyer.

Feel free to reply direct if you want contacts


-------------------------------------------------- From: "Sean Donelan" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 12:24 AM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Can P2P applications learn to play fair on networks?

Much of the same content is available through NNTP, HTTP and P2P. The content part gets a lot of attention and outrage, but network engineers seem to be responding to something else.

If its not the content, why are network engineers at many university networks, enterprise networks, public networks concerned about the impact particular P2P protocols have on network operations? If it was just a
single network, maybe they are evil. But when many different networks
all start responding, then maybe something else is the problem.

The traditional assumption is that all end hosts and applications cooperate and fairly share network resources. NNTP is usually considered a very well-behaved network protocol. Big bandwidth, but sharing network resources. HTTP is a little less behaved, but still roughly seems to share network resources equally with other users. P2P applications seem
to be extremely disruptive to other users of shared networks, and causes
problems for other "polite" network applications.

While it may seem trivial from an academic perspective to do some things,
for network engineers the tools are much more limited.

User/programmer/etc education doesn't seem to work well. Unless the network enforces a behavor, the rules are often ignored. End users generally can't change how their applications work today even if they wanted too.

Putting something in-line across a national/international backbone is extremely difficult. Besides network engineers don't like additional
in-line devices, no matter how much the sales people claim its fail-safe.

Sampling is easier than monitoring a full network feed. Using netflow sampling or even a SPAN port sampling is good enough to detect major issues. For the same reason, asymetric sampling is easier than requiring symetric (or synchronized) sampling. But it also means there will be
a limit on the information available to make good and bad decisions.

Out-of-band detection limits what controls network engineers can implement on the traffic. USENET has a long history of generating third-party cancel messages. IPS systems and even "passive" taps have long used third-party
packets to respond to traffic. DNS servers been used to re-direct subscribers to walled gardens. If applications responded to ICMP Source Quench or other administrative network messages that may be better; but they don't.