North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010]
On Apr 23, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Harrowell > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Morrow >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> It strikes me that often just doing a reverse lookup on the peer >>> address would be 'good enough' to keep things more 'local' in a >>> network sense. Something like: >>> >>> 1) prefer peers with PTR's like mine (perhaps get address from a >>> public-ish server - myipaddress.com/ipchicken.com/dshield.org) >>> 2) prefer peers within my /24->/16 ? >>> >>> This does depend on what you define as 'local' as well, 'stay off my >>> transit links' or 'stay off my last-mile' or 'stay off that godawful >>> expensive VZ link from CHI to NYC in my backhaul network... >> >> Well. here's your problem; depending on the architecture, the IP >> addressing >> structure doesn't necessarily map to the network's cost structure. >> This is >> why I prefer the P4P/DillTorrent announcement model. >> > > sure 80/20 rule... less complexity in the clients and some benefit(s). > perhaps short term something like the above with longer term more > realtime info about locality. For the applications, it's a lot less work to use a clean network map from ISP's than it is to in effect derive one from lookups to ASN, / 24, /16, pings, traceroutes, etc. The main reason to spend the effort to implement those tactics is that it's better than not doing anything. :-) Laird Popkin CTO, Pando Networks 520 Broadway, 10th floor New York, NY 10012 [email protected] c) 646/465-0570 _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
|