Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

From: Alexander Harrowell (no email)
Date: Sun Jan 21 2007 - 14:41:12 EST

  • Next message: Stephen Sprunk: "Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?"

    Sprunk:

    > > It's a nice idea to collect popularity data at the ISP level, because
    > > the decision on what to load into the local torrent servers could be
    > > automated.
    >
    > Note that collecting popularity data could be done at the edges without
    > forcing all tracker requests through a transparent proxy.

    Yes. This is my point. It's a good thing to do, but centralising it is an
    ungood thing to do, because...

    > Once torrent X reaches a certain trigger level of popularity, the
    > > local
    > > server grabs it and begins serving, and the local-pref function on the
    > > clients finds it. Meanwhile, we drink coffee. However, it's a
    > > potential
    > > DOS magnet - after all, P2P is really a botnet with a badge.
    >
    > I don't see how. If you detect that N customers are downloading a
    > torrent, then having the ISP's peer download that torrent and serve it
    > to the customers means you consume 1/N upstream bandwidth. That's an
    > anti-DOS :)

    All true. My point is that forcing all tracker requests through a proxy
    makes that machine an obvious DDOS target. It's got to have an open
    interface to all hosts on your network on one side, and to $world on the
    other, and if it goes down, then everyone on your network loses service. And
    you're expecting traffic distributed over a large number of IP addresses
    because it's a P2P application, so distinguishing normal traffic from a
    botnet attack will be hard.

    > And the point of a topology-aware P2P client is that it seeks the
    > > nearest host, so if you constrain it to the ISP local server only,
    > > you're
    > > losing part of the point of P2P for no great saving in
    > > peering/transit.
    >
    > That's why I don't like the idea of transparent proxies for P2P; you can
    > get 90% of the effect with 10% of the evilness by setting up sane
    > rate-limits.

    OK.

    > As long as they don't interfere with the user's right to choose
    > > someone
    > > else's content, fine.
    >
    > If you're getting it from an STB, well, there may not be a way for users
    > to add 3rd party torrents; how many users will be able to figure out how
    > to add the torrent URLs (or know where to find said URLs) even if there
    > is an option? Remember, we're talking about Joe Sixpack here, not
    > techies.
    >
    > You would, however, be able to pick whatever STB you wanted (unless ISPs
    > deliberately blocked competitors' services).

    Please. Joe has a right to know these things. How long before Joe finds out
    anyway?


  • Next message: Stephen Sprunk: "Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD