ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

Joe Provo nanog-post at rsuc.gweep.net
Wed Jan 9 21:15:43 UTC 2008


On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:04:37PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
[snip]
> However, my question is simply.. for ISPs promising broadband service. 
> Isn't it simpler to just announce a bandwidth quota/cap that your "good" 
> users won't hit and your bad ones will? 

Simple bandwidth is not the issue.  This is about traffic models using
statistical multiplexing making assumption regardin humans at the helmu,
and those models directing the capital investment of facilities and 
hardware.  You likely will see p2p throttling where you also see 
"residential customers must not host servers" policies.  Demand curves 
for p2p usage do not match any stat-mux models where brodband is sold
for less than it costs to maintain and upgrade the physical plant.

> Especially when there is no real reason this P2P traffic can't 
> masquerade as something really interesting... like Email or Web (https, 
> hello!) or SSH or gamer traffic. I personally expect a day when there is 
> a torrent "encryption" module that converts everything to look like a 
> plain-text email conversation or IRC or whatever.

The "problem" with p2p traffic is how it behaves, which will not be
hidden by ports or encryption.  If the *behavior* of the protocol[s]
change such that they no longer look like digital fountains and more
like "email conversation or IRC or whatever", then their impact is
mitigated and they would not *be* a problem to be shaped/throttled/
managed.  

[snip]
> I remember Bill Norton's peering forum regarding P2P traffic and how the 
> majority of it is between cable and other broadband providers... 
> Operationally, why not just lash a few additional 10GE cross-connects 
> and let these *paying customers* communicate as they will?

Peering happens between broadband companies all the time.  That does
not resolve regional, city, or neighborhood congestion in one network.

[snip]
> Encouraging "encryption" of more protocols is an interesting way to 
> discourage this kind of shaping.

This does nothing but reduce the pool of remote-p2p-nodes to those 
running encryption-capable clients.  This is why people think they 
"get away" using encryption, as they are no longer the tallest nail
to be hammered down, and often enough fit within their buckets.

[snip]
> My caffeine hasn't hit, so I can't think of anything else. Is this 
> something the market will address by itself?

Likely.  Some networks abandon standards and will tie customers to 
gear that looks more like dedicated pipes (narad, etc). Some will 
have the 800-lb-gorilla-tude to accelerate vendors' deployment of
docsis3.0.  Folks with the apropriate war chests can (and have) 
roll out PON and be somewhat generous... of course, the dedicated
and mandatory ONT & CPE looks a lot like voice pre-carterfone...

Joe, not promoting/supporting any position, just trying to provide
    facts about running last-mile networks.

-- 
             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE



More information about the NANOG mailing list