[LINK] RFI: P2P Traffic 2005-06
kim at holburn.net
Mon Aug 7 20:11:58 EST 2006
On 2006 Aug 07, at 6:57 PM, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> At 08:22 AM 7/08/2006, rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> The third thought is this: once the user traffic has passed a
>> given boundary (let's call it the point of ingress), isn't all
>> traffic "peer to peer"? The definition being sought by marketers
>> isn't a definition of "Internet traffic" but "access network
>> Random musings which may be shredded at will...
> I'll bite. I've been having a go on Whirlpool about p2p hogs as
> they whinge so much about poor performance of their connections
> (pirating stuff). In fact the cynical comment when they get too
> vocal is that *of course* they are just trying to get Linux
> distros. The funny reply then is the whinger asking: what's a Linux
> distro? -- or -- God, I can't get my copy of xxxx tv program, what
> ever will I do!?!
> As a result I tried to do a bit of copyright education (long
> story), but ended up with the thread being moved into the p2p forum
> with the Thread title: Illegal downloading under Australian law. It
> has come up in the top 20-30 most read threads in all of whirlpool
> for about a week, with over 2100 views. Now the top thread on that
> forum over the past two days is: RIAA Sues Limewire (one of the p2p
> distribution clients).
> It's all an interesting insight into the hardcore p2p users. The
> link is: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-threads.cfm?f=87 is
> you want to have a look.
There is an interesting article by Cringely on this and how it
relates to net neutrality.
> Though e-mail and web surfing are both probably more important to
> Internet users than BitTorrent, the peer-to-peer file transfer
> scheme uses more total Internet bandwidth at something over 30
> percent. Some ISPs absolutely hate BitTorrent and have moved to
> limit its impact on their networks by controlling the amount of
> bandwidth available to BitTorrent traffic. This, too, flies in the
> face of our supposed current state of blissful Net Neutrality. A
> list of ISPs that limit BitTorrent bandwidth is in this week's
> links, though most of them are, so far, outside the United States.
> BitTorrent blocking or limiting can be defeated by encrypting the
> torrents, but that increases overhead, causes a bigger bandwidth
> hit, and defeats local caching schemes that might help reduce
> bandwidth demand. So blocking BitTorrent actually makes life worse
> for all of us, which may be why most U.S. ISPs aren't doing it.
> So let's assume that ISPs are allowed to offer tiered services.
> What impact will that have on BitTorrent? The answer lies in the
> nature of the TCP/IP protocol. Here is an analysis from a friend
> who is far more savvy about these things than I am:
> "If you look at the amount of overhead TCP needs it's exponential
> to how slow each connection is; the slower (the connection) the
> more overhead because the window sizes are smaller and more control
> packets are being used for verification. And you know what?
> BitTorrent is FAR WORSE. Remember that for each file you download
> on BitTorrent you connect to dozens, possibly even hundreds of
> people, and the slower each of those connections is the more the
> overhead increases.
> "About a month ago the amount of torrents I may (have been)
> automatically downloading at any given time was between 10 and 30.
> This means that I was getting no more than 1Kbps from every peer,
> which meant about half of my bandwidth usage was in BitTorrent
> protocol overhead and not in downloading file data. I brought this
> (overhead) down (by 40 percent) by just having five torrent
> downloads at a time and queuing the rest, and I even got the files
> faster. I then did some more scheduling and what not to get (my
> bandwidth use down by a total of 70 percent) and I still downloaded
> about the same amount of real file data.
> "So what happens when everyone's VoIP or other preferred packets
> get preference over my torrent packets? Since I have no knowledge
> of the other people's usage in my aggregate network I can't adjust
> well for changes in the network. The BitTorrent traffic that is
> going will have exponentially increased overhead due to the slow
> downs, increasing overall Internet packet overhead (with BitTorrent
> already 30+ percent of all Internet traffic). Which means that
> allowing the telco's to subsidize the cost of improving their
> infrastructure by having preferred packets could exponentially
> increase the cost accrued by the larger internet and backbone
> providers just to keep costs down at the aggregate level."
> To recap: Giving priority to some traffic puts a hurt on other
> types of traffic and when that other traffic constitutes more than
> 30 percent of the Internet, the results can be severe for all of
> us. On the Internet everything is connected, and you can't easily
> ignore the impact of one service on another.
IT Network & Security Consultant
Ph: +61 2 61258620 M: +61 417820641 F: +61 2 6230 6121
mailto:kim at holburn.net aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request
Cacert Root Cert: http://www.cacert.org/cacert.crt
Aust. Spam Act: To stop receiving mail from me: reply and let me know.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD] http://www.saqqara.demon.co.uk/
Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny.
-- Lloyd Biggle, Jr. Analog, Apr 1961
More information about the Link