[NANOG] [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010]

Eric Osterweil eoster at cs.ucla.edu
Thu Apr 24 10:59:23 CDT 2008


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:48 AM, Keith O'Neill wrote:

> The iTrackers just helps the nodes to talk to each other in a more
> efficient way, all the iTracker does is talk to another p2p tracker  
> and
> is used for network topology, has no caching or file information or  
> user
> information..
>

After reading the P4P paper, it seems like the iTrackers have some  
large implications.  Off the top of my head:
- - The paper says, "An iTracker provides... network status/ 
topology..." doesn't it seem like you wouldn't want to send this to  
P2P clients?  Is the "PID" supposed to preserve privacy here?  I have  
some doubts about how well the PID helps after exposing ASN and LOC.
- - As a P2P developer, wouldn't I be worried about giving the iTracker  
the ability to tell my clients that their upload/download capacity is  
0 (or just above)?  It seems like iTrackers are allowed to control  
P2P clients completely w/ this recommendation, right?  That would be  
very useful for an ISP, but a very dangerous DoS vector to clients.

These are just a couple of the thoughts that I had while reading.

Eric

> Keith O'Neill
> Pando Networks
>
> Mike Gonnason wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Michael Holstein
>> <michael.holstein at csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps  
>>>> as being proprietary for many good reasons. The approach that  
>>>> P4P takes is to have an intermediate server (which we call an  
>>>> iTracker) that processes the network maps and provides  
>>>> abstracted guidance (lists of IP prefixes and percentages) to  
>>>> the p2p networks that allows them to figure out which peers are  
>>>> near each other. The iTracker can be run by the ISP or by a  
>>>> trusted third party, as the ISP prefers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Won't this approach (using a ISP-managed intermediate)  
>>> ultimately end up
>>>  being co-opted by the lawyers for the various industry "interest  
>>> groups"
>>>  and thus be ignored by the p2p users?
>>>
>>>  Cheers,
>>>
>>>  Michael Holstein
>>>  Cleveland State University
>>>
>>
>> This idea is what I am concerned about. Until the whole copyright  
>> mess
>> gets sorted out, wouldn't these iTracker supernodes be a goldmine of
>> logs for copyright lawyers? They would have a great deal of
>> information about what exactly is being transferred, by whom and for
>> how long.
>>
>> -Mike Gonnason
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NANOG mailing list
>> NANOG at nanog.org
>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG at nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD4DBQFIEK5hK/tq6CJjZQIRAgXqAJd8t3XkmYqo1WYaJP7qOF4W67tYAJ9C5hZ+
iwVc8ZU8AJ3f98KCFCq8Eg==
=LEPV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the NANOG mailing list